Anyone using 27 width divisions?

[blahmaster6k]

I prefer to stay with 27w which is the maximum the ai is set up to build.

Ironically, the generic army AI is set to build 40-width divisions in vanilla, but each major has a unique army AI that tells them to build towards only 20 or 27 width target templates. It's pretty common to see minors in the midgame with 14-4 divisions, but majors never will.

 

[Tsavong]

27 width works fine against the ai . I sometimes use them as a compromise between count of divisions and firepower, breakthrough and that works great. I especially do that when i play minors and would have only a small count of divisions if i build up to 40 width. Using 27 width gives the numbers to navigate at the front and encircle while still keeping enough power.
And 27 width tank divisions can defeat everything the ai brings to the field and you simply have more of them then 40 width divisions. So 40 width divisions are in my opinion an overkill at least for the vanilla ai and so I choose to have more divisions.

 

[CrasherZZ]

The way attacks are calculated, divisions don't add up their soft attacks before comparing to the defense of the defending division, so even multiple 40-width infantry divisions won't be able to get any attacks over the defense stat of a defending 40-width infantry division.

@blahmaster6k Thanks for that great detailed analysis. Makes me glad I posted the question. I have a question about the above statement though. This is a quote from the wiki:

"When more than one division participates from one side, they can combine their attack value to overcome the defense of the opposition. For example, two divisions with 100 attacks each pull their attacks versus single division with 150 defenses. In this situation 150 attacks will be considered "blocked" and have a 0.1 chance of hitting, while 50 attacks will be "unblocked" and have 0.4 chance of hitting."

It appears to be contradictory to your statement, or am I misinterpreting this?

 

[CrasherZZ]

Yes, it would only be 2.5% applied to all the units.

the quick math says that it is bigger than the benefit of adding the extra 1 width:
You already have 80 width of power and add 1 => 1/80 = 0,0125 or 1.25%

About why 40 width is better, we have to see how attack and defense/breakthrough works.

At each combat round, all division in a battle attack one of the division in front of it.
Let say we have division build in the following way :
20 width : 100 attack / 100 defense
40 width : 200 attack / 200 defense

If the total amount of attack inflicted to a division is lower than the defense, 10% of the attack will deal damage.
If the total amount of attack inflicted to a division is higher than the defense, 40% of the attack above will deal damage, and 10% of the attack below will deal damage

In our case, the 20w will have 200 attack combined against 200 defense of the 40w. Thus, only 10% of the attack will deal damage, so 20 damage
Then the 40w attack one of the 20w, it has 200 attack against only 100 defense as it target a division. Thus 40% of 100 (what is above 100 defense) will deal damage, as well as 10% of 100 (what is below 100 defense). For a total of 50 damage
Thus by being a size 40 against 2 size 20, in this scenario, you dealt 2.5 more damage

This a nice illustration but why not compare 4 20w against 2 40w, since that's what will fit in an 80w front? Using your parameters:

20w: 4x100 = 400 attack versus 1 40w with 200 defense
40w: 2x200 = 400 attack versus 1 20w with 100 defense

Looks like the 20w would get shattered pretty quickly but there are three more still in the battle. The 2 40w would eventually wear down the 4 20w but would also take some damage too. The same thing would happen with 3 27w versus 2 40w but would take a longer. Would the ORG values would be more important for the smaller divisions?

 

[blahmaster6k]

This a nice illustration but why not compare 4 20w against 2 40w, since that's what will fit in an 80w front? Using your parameters:

20w: 4x100 = 400 attack versus 1 40w with 200 defense
40w: 2x200 = 400 attack versus 1 20w with 100 defense

Looks like the 20w would get shattered pretty quickly but there are three more still in the battle. The 2 40w would eventually wear down the 4 20w but would also take some damage too. The same thing would happen with 3 27w versus 2 40w but would take a longer. Would the ORG values would be more important for the smaller divisions?

I'm not entirely sure, I've never really done calculations for 27 width divisions because they're so rare to see outside of the AI sometimes building them. Regardless, the way two 40-widths focus their attacks in combat is superior to the way four 20-widths choose their targets at random and will generally lead to quickly forcing the smaller divisions to retreat one by one, as you suggest. Individually the 40-widths do more damage to their targets than their targets do to them (comparable to the damage of two 20-widths both attacking the same 40-width), and if both 40-widths target the same division it will be deorged very quickly.

One big downside of 27 width divisions is tactics being triggered that lower the combat width though. Attacking over a river will sooner or later trigger the "seize bridge" phase of combat, where the combat width is halved. 27 is a factor of 80, but not of 40, which means that it will be pretty hard to get over rivers if you rely on 27 width. (of course you can also just cancel and restart an attack whenever the bridge tactics fire, but that's kind of gamey).

@blahmaster6k Thanks for that great detailed analysis. Makes me glad I posted the question. I have a question about the above statement though. This is a quote from the wiki:

"When more than one division participates from one side, they can combine their attack value to overcome the defense of the opposition. For example, two divisions with 100 attacks each pull their attacks versus single division with 150 defenses. In this situation 150 attacks will be considered "blocked" and have a 0.1 chance of hitting, while 50 attacks will be "unblocked" and have 0.4 chance of hitting."

It appears to be contradictory to your statement, or am I misinterpreting this?

This is true, the wiki says that but I've heard players say otherwise in mp groups before. I think I may have misunderstood or listened to unreliable sources, assuming the wiki is correct. I'm not entirely sure anymore. I trust the wiki, but at least from my experience I can often hold the line with a single 20-0 infantry division against a massive attack of up to 10-15 AI divisions attacking from multiple directions. If they combined their attacks I'm pretty sure they would eventually break the single 40-width division, but they hardly ever do. One 40-width would have enough attack to reliably deorg whatever it targets on defense, but up against that many divisions I would assume it would lose before being able to deorg every attacking division. This is anecdotal of course, not really reliable evidence, but maybe it deserves testing.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

It's not a big deal most of the time but if you get bridge crossing tactic stuff or fight someone with mass assault having combat width get stripped to 40 will screw you up a lot. Not worth the hassle when you can just use 20 and 40 widths.

 

[CrasherZZ]

Thanks everyone for the great feedback.

I'm going to experiment with 27w, 26w, 13w, and 14w just for fun. Although 40w seems best if you can afford it, I'd like to see how the cheaper options work out too.

 

[Vaximillian]

templates

Posting here for posterity and to save these for future use.