Because coordination hurts your damage efficiency, and knocking formations out one at a time gives them the most time to reinforce into the combat and maintain it for longer, potentially indefinitely.
- 1
About attack algorithm ,Coordination and Initative ,Is this right?
- Thread starter charlottep51
- 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.
Thank you for the clarification.
So now the defenders are absolutely better than Before, regardless to the coordination. And as you say in the last statement, the stat concentrations (that is the bigger attack, defense and so long of the bigger division, right?) now are nerfed, and if you don't follow the coordination (e.g. Mass Assault) is easier to reduce hits, so the damage go down.
Now the question is (and I see that the question is already here, someway): can a MA human wave of 10w divisions beat a well organized and coordinated 40w division of GBP-L?
P.S.: I use 10, 20 and 40 only because they are round numbers, not because they are the bests.
Depends what the build restrictions and victory conditions are, but I am leaning towards yes. That is a lot of org.
- 1
i have a feeling these smaller units are going to be taking far higher casualties than the larger divisions, even if you are able to cycle them.
also if they are forced out they lose entrenchment, so yeah this “reinforce rate” wont hold the province. you can try to cycle for forever but you reinforce rate is usually only 8% per hour also.
I’d like to see more testing done, I have a feeling smaller units is in the end a bad idea.
note you cannot force attack 10w infantry or any other commands like force attack, they will shatter and be gone.
also if they are forced out they lose entrenchment, so yeah this “reinforce rate” wont hold the province. you can try to cycle for forever but you reinforce rate is usually only 8% per hour also.
I’d like to see more testing done, I have a feeling smaller units is in the end a bad idea.
note you cannot force attack 10w infantry or any other commands like force attack, they will shatter and be gone.
Last edited:
It needs practice test, but the issue is understand how much time requires the 40w division with max coordination to strike a single 10w division: if it's very few hours (like an One-Turn-Kill), I don't know if the reinforce rate is quite high to compensate.
MA-R gives a 5 inf 1 support arty 62.5 org, and through base, radio, org first, basic and 'advanced' doctrine we get 2+5+2+2+20=31% reinforce rate, which we can expect reinforcements every 3 or 4 hours.
This 62.5 org, at an average of 2.5 org per damage roll (not using armour bonus), is 25 dice. 25 dice after the /200 mod is 5000 hits. Even at the full 40% hit rate, that is 12500 attacks. I find it very unlikely that a single template would suffer that many attacks within the span of 3-4 hours (3-4k attacks every hour) to be able to out-pace the MA-R reinforce rate.
- 1
- 1
- 1
Right now I was reading the wiki for the numbers. Effectively, with a coarse count, a single division cannot be strike before 10/12 hours (speculating the enormous amount of 6 org damage per hour, 2,5 times the average). Even if it was 8 hours, meanwhile one division reinforces almost certainly (we are around 95%) the front, so the battle can go on for a lot of time.
MA-R is missing combat tactics to counter Blitz and Breakthrough, in fact it has the least amount of tactics of any tree. You are then at a severe disadvantage when fighting any sort of armored units. You have 0 chance to counter those tactics. They are almost immediately starting off with a 20% bonus to damage.
Since the scenario hasn't really been clearly defined, who says that the MA in this instance is defending, or that armoured units are involved? The 'other' side might not have access to those tactics for 'our' side having access to counters to be meaningful (if counters even are meaningful to begin with). I picked MA-R because we were locked into MA as a choice, and it offered more org and a better reinforce rate than MA-L, which were the only really relevant things to the conversation at that point.
I would like to avoid going down a tactics rabbit hole, the point of this thread is more about coordination/initiative and width, template design rather than combat resolution specifically. I still don't think doctrines have much impact on template design (well, not as much as I think they should), and as such doctrines and tactics and such can be a side note, but I really don't want to give it much more attention than that.
- 1
You're right. MA-R isn't a doctrine after all, is more a "Sends 1000 men against enemy. They died? Sends another 1000". But I compare 40 pure infantry GBP-L vs 10 pure infantry MA. Who can win from a "mathematical point of view" not considering other parameters? Probably MA delaying the battle.
P.S.: I compare the doctrines from the coordination/initiative point of view, not as doctrines as such.
I guess my point is that if the test is to narrow the results will be poor. Garbage in, garbage out. If you are only concerned with organization loss and reinforcement rate then fine, but I think it misses the larger picture when dealing with combat tactics, entrenchment, etc. you’ve already somehow come to the conclusion smaller divisions are better on defense because reasons. That’s fine, I’m interested in the outcome of your tests. But people post graphs on here as authoritative truth, I think you are in fact wrong about coordination entirely given a wider picture. Or more precisely, I guess it depends on what variable you are trying to maximize
You're right (again), because I consider only one parameter, ignoring the rest. But all the issue is around the new parameter "coordination" and its effects. One of these is that a coordinated division aims to strike defenders one by one, instead of tears down the Org Wall all together. It's better or not? It depends. If you do a quasi-extreme comparison (max coordination vs max reinforce rate), it seems that reinforce rate wins, because you have to do 20/25 org damage per hour. It needs practical test, but probably doesn't exist a division that can do that, because the other parameters cannot bring the average 2,5 up to 25, at least for that I know.
What diary, thanks. From I read they "may" add hardness target for AT division. Other than that lowest org target is good option. Do they means the target with lowest defense stats? That's another good option.
And interesting point here is what does coordination do on the defense? Devs confirmed in another thread that defense does target the divisions using coordination (at least crampus ). Does that de org attackers more quickly adding to ending attacks? I believe also that yes maybe you have more org but I think this also causes higher casualties.
is the attack from a smaller unit enough to be higher than breakthrough of a larger unit? Take GB for example.
It is the same on paper, but the defender often has less troops, or smaller divisions and the attacker often has reserve. The defender should look for something like 15-22 width to get at least 4 divisions in 80w, that will help to recycle the divisions in combat. Lower that that and the defense stats for each individual defend division will not be enough, lead to high casualties.
Last edited:
- 1
As said before, my argument was from the attacker point of view, because the "meta" situation, after the other thread, was 1x40w vs 4x10/2x20w, not viceversa. So, from the defender point of view, coord. (in this specific case) doesn't apply. In a more general case, yes, we have to take into account coord. also for the defender in almost the same way.
On your question, as always, it depends: in a 1x40w vs 4x10 case, infantry vs infantry, the attacker break is greater than the attack of one defender, so it will be always shielded. The defending side can do little damage, and will suffer more casualties.
Apologize me, but I don't understand the "Take GB" example, what example is?
while each hour the big attacking divisions is not as efficiency as before, they can keep attacking the same weaken division, so in total it is not big loss. That happens without the need of a signal company.
The patch did buff the smaller division much more than nerf the big.
The big division can be big again if they have a good target priorities, I think they should choose the easiest enemy to kick out, a combination of weak Org and weak Def stats.
The patch did buff the smaller division much more than nerf the big.
The big division can be big again if they have a good target priorities, I think they should choose the easiest enemy to kick out, a combination of weak Org and weak Def stats.
Small stayed basically the same, what makes you think they were buffed? They did get stronger in comparison to big, but that is because big got nerfed so hard.
The xp cost to make big division is so rare to get, so the small can survive because they didn't meet too big division. Did anyone have experience with 40w much? I think about making super huge division for test now when I finish the current 1st game. 70w+ some more 10w to fill in? Someone pls test. However, at the current we don't have an official statement on how priority target work exactly.
The overwidth penalty was reduced much so the smaller div will fit better to max. Now on defense, we will want to fit as much as possible, not try to prevent over width like before. The more divisions, the more spread the other side gets.
Nerfing big formations is not the same as buffing small ones. Small ones did not get buffed, big ones got nerfed.