Are these worth bothering with? If so, how to use? how to design, how to build, etc.?
Alpine Infantry?
- Thread starter Anthropoid
- 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.
Probably. If you have to fight in mountains, mountaineers might be handy yes.
I mean, I'm not sure what else you were expecting really, but there you go.
I mean, I'm not sure what else you were expecting really, but there you go.
Based on quick glance at their stats page in-game, they seem to be slightly better at assault in general, and of course better at defense in non-flat terrain in general?
Obviously, if one MUST defend mountains or hills they are preferable. But there many subsidiary questions which such an axiom does not address:
1. Are the cost/benefit tradeoffs of Alpine Infantry assaulting into Mt. hexes greater or less than for properly designed armor?
2. Are there relative cost/benefits such that they might be useful to build in general and use widely outside of non-flat terrain contexts?
3. If they are "worth" training up, then how should they be organized with the rest of the army? Put mountain Divs in every army in a 1 : 5 ratio versus other Infantry? That would be my first guess of how best to use them. Perhaps if one is dealing with a special circumstance like an assault across a particular mountainous border or defense of a mountainous front, then organize them temporarily into their own armies with 3 or 4 div per army?
Since this is such a tough crowd who wouldn't do my bidding and provide the following screen cap, here I spent my hard earned Wehrmacht XP (from selling weapons to BOTH the Italians and Ethiopians and fighting WITH the Ethiopians and now the Republicans too!) to just go ahead and slap together a couple 20w templates to compare standard Infantry with Alpine Infantry.
Okay, so to summarize the relative cost benefits and focusing only on those attributes where there is difference between alpine infantry and standard infantry . . .
Alpine Infantry > Costs/Weaknesses:
-------------------------------Mt Inf-----------Inf-------------Ratio
"Production Cost" ------782 to 927------622 to 727----Mt cost 25.7% to 27.5% MORE
HP--------------------------204.2-----------254.2----------Mt are 80.3% of Inf [19.7% weaker]
Inf Eq------------------------1450----------1050-----------Mt cost 38.1% MORE
Alpine Infantry > Benefits/Strengths
-------------------------------Mt Inf-----------Inf-------------Ratio
Org--------------------------56.9-------------49.2-----------Mt 15.7% BETTER
Recovery--------------------0.36-------------0.28-----------Mt 28.6% BETTER
Breaththrough--------------48.6-------------39.6-----------Mt 22.7% BETTER
As far as I can tell, everything else is IDENTICAL.
Last edited:
So, what I'm seeing is: They are ~25% better for assault, as well as being particularly better for defending non-flat terrain, and for a cost increase of 25 to 27% in materials and 38% more Infantry Equipment.
The 38% more Infantry Equipment means: more small arms, more mortars, more grenades, etc. The 25 to 27% more in materials, I'm not sure. Better uniforms? Better bivvy gear? Trained in facilities that are slightly better?
ADDIT: one thing I'm not really clear on is what does "Production cost" really mean? It has the resource icons to the left but how is it coming up with an aggregate number? I'm guessing that the game has hidden behind the prying eyes of casual MP server players "trade values" for every resource (based on their availability at the start of the campaign) and those aggregate values represent the "trade value" of each resource added?
The 38% more Infantry Equipment means: more small arms, more mortars, more grenades, etc. The 25 to 27% more in materials, I'm not sure. Better uniforms? Better bivvy gear? Trained in facilities that are slightly better?
ADDIT: one thing I'm not really clear on is what does "Production cost" really mean? It has the resource icons to the left but how is it coming up with an aggregate number? I'm guessing that the game has hidden behind the prying eyes of casual MP server players "trade values" for every resource (based on their availability at the start of the campaign) and those aggregate values represent the "trade value" of each resource added?
The funny thing is: in the 8-wide incarnation they occur at the outset (at least for Germany, I guess Austria's templates are more beefy) they don't seem particularly useful. But if one were to build enough 20w Alpine Infantry to fill in one whole Army (24) then they might really start to be useful as a special branch of an army: need to defend rough terrain? Distribute your Mt Divs appropriately. Need to assault some hilly areas? Distribute the Mt. Divs as needed. Need to make an assault and dont' have enough tanks or otherwise would prefer to use leg infantry for a portion of it? Mt. Infantry stacks to the rescue . . .
With recent changes to special forces i dont think any of them are worth extra reserch, you better off reserching something thats gona benefit your whole army than something that benefit just couple of divisions
It does annoy me you waste a research slot researching Mtn/Mar/Par, which let's be honest are a luxury and it unlocks a 4 Batallion division so you need to splurge 50/60 army experience making them worthwhile. They should start at 18 width like most starting infantry divisions are.
From an historical standpoint, I think having to commit through two loops of "research" (or more) to have really effective marine/para/specops is a good thing.
I'd agree with you if I didn't have to spend "research" remembering that artillery is an effective addition to an infantry division.
Depends on the country you play as. As Italy for example, they are helpful in Balkans, greece vs France and if you open second front vs SU in the Caucasus.