Unless you consider the historical mechanized progression where the only infantry that moved as fast as the tanks, even in averages, were those with motorized transportation. You see, you're assuming tanks in constant contact but the virtue of the tank is that it does not need to be in constant contact to achieve its goal. This was the entire point (proven in battle) of the theories put forth by Heinz Guerdadin and Erich Von Manstein. The only times where this principle didn't play out was against other tanks or in severely bad logistical situations. In tactical principle, the tank is the cavalry: unable to hold territory or successfully assault infantry (the Mongols were a dramatic exception to this rule because of Mongol innovations in command and control) but capable of outpacing infantry, engaging and disengaging at its leisure and smashing the logistical organization of the opposition to hell.
-
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.
Unless you consider the historical mechanized progression where the only infantry that moved as fast as the tanks, even in averages, were those with motorized transportation. You see, you're assuming tanks in constant contact but the virtue of the tank is that it does not need to be in constant contact to achieve its goal. This was the entire point (proven in battle) of the theories put forth by Heinz Guerdadin and Erich Von Manstein. The only times where this principle didn't play out was against other tanks or in severely bad logistical situations. In tactical principle, the tank is the cavalry: unable to hold territory or successfully assault infantry (the Mongols were a dramatic exception to this rule because of Mongol innovations in command and control) but capable of outpacing infantry, engaging and disengaging at its leisure and smashing the logistical organization of the opposition to hell.
You also have to consider how those tanks are going to get refueled all the way out in front of their infantry support. Tanks can only drive so far till they run out of gas and trucks cannot always ship the stuff to them. Many times tanks out ran their own fuel supply, getting stranded until logistics could catch up, losing any major surprise or advantage that was being gained by their thrust.
Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics.
And winners study strategies. Blitzkrieg wasn't a tactical doctrine; it was a strategic one. It was limited understanding and insufficient appreciation of the fact that tanks can operate far afield of infantry with poor supply lines that birthed the broad front strategy implemented by the Allied forces as they drove towards Germany. Theory is well and good but what was actually proven in implementation means more.
Engineers are a neat idea. I think I will add them to my divisional makeup now.
The only problem I see is that the people in need of rapid bridging are those "armoured cavalry" LARM-heavy divisions, and I am not sure if any technologies increase the speed of Engineer brigades.
The only problem I see is that the people in need of rapid bridging are those "armoured cavalry" LARM-heavy divisions, and I am not sure if any technologies increase the speed of Engineer brigades.
I'm confused.
Blitzkrieg was ultimately unsuccessful. Arguably the Soviet "deep operations" proved the superior doctrine w.r.t. disruption and encirclement.
I'm confused.
Blitzkrieg was ultimately unsuccessful. Arguably the Soviet "deep operations" proved the superior doctrine w.r.t. disruption and encirclement.
Blitzkrieg was unsuccessful because no plans were made for what would happen if you couldn't drive to Vladivistok in a month. It's most significant advantage, moreover, was wasted when Hitler started demanding that the spearhead slow down and try to grind its way through symbolic cities instead of rendering the paralyzed Red Army helpless by destruction of logistics and C&C, a task for which the blitzkrieg style of rapid mechanized warfare is uniquely suited. In the end, a superior strategy was squandered by incompetent implementation; even in the unmitigated successes in France, we started to see shadows of this coming failure in the way that Hitler imposed delays because he couldn't break free of the pathological fear of logistical limitations. The same failure on the Western Front by the Allies turned a possible 1944 victory into a long bloodletting until mid-1945. In France, many of the German commanders stood and fought because they feared the wrath of Hitler and his SS maniacs; cut off from suicidal demands, they would have laid down their arms. Cutting communications and logistics is, again, something that blitzkrieg is exceptionally good at.
The Red Army's deep operations doctrine was more or less an application of overwhelming numerical weight to the problem that blitzkrieg solved. They could simply catch German armies in a lengthy bloodletting to prevent disengagement and then cut them off; this wouldn't be possible without a combination of massive numbers and a complete indifference to the fate of the soldiers. Quantity is its own quality, as NATO commanders would later say of the Warsaw Pact armies.
Mot is useful for countries that cannot afford specialized research, and thus forms a good baseline. Looking at the stats for 2 Mec + 1 TD I am not sure why you think it is so great, even if you skip armor research to make the TD a little faster. You can also only fit 5 such divisions into the frontage of a province, compared with 4 divisions consisting of 3 Arm + 1 AC or 3 Arm + 2 SP Art. Overall, its ability to deal with hard divisions (~40%) is marginally better than Arm based divisions, and it is much less effective against reasonably soft targets (50%-100%). Also, it is much less efficient in terms of manpower than either 3 Arm + 1 AC or 3 Arm + 2 SP Art.
2 Mec + 1 TD
1941: SA: 15.2, HA: 12.6, soft: 56.3%, speed: 6.75
1947: SA: 20.6, HA: 18.3, soft: 53.3%, speed: 7.5
all: supply: 3.43, fuel: 2.5, IC days: 3210, MP: 7.67
For reference:
1. Baseline (all divisions with 4 combat brigades)
3 Arm + 1 Mot (breakthrough)
1941: SA: 20.39, HA: 17.66, soft: 36.5%, speed: 7.5
1947: SA: 31.19, HA: 27.41, soft: 36.0%, speed: 8.7
all: supply: 4.99, fuel: 5.17, IC days: 5690, MP: 10.34
2 L.Arm + 2 Mec (exploitation)
1941: SA: 20.54, HA: 10.94, soft: 50.5%, speed: 9.8
1947: SA: 28.94, HA: 16.64, soft: 49.0%, speed: 10.4
all: supply: 4.66, fuel: 4.0, IC days: 4426, MP: 10.66
2. Blitzkrieg (all divisions with 3 combat brigades)
3 Arm + 1 AC (breakthrough)
1941: SA: 20.39, HA: 16.32, soft: 34.2%, speed: 7.5
1947: SA: 30.99, HA: 25.32, soft: 33.7%, speed: 9.0
all: supply: 4.32, fuel: 4.83, IC days: 5496, MP: 8.66
3 L.Arm + 1 SP R Art (exploitation)
1941: SA: 16.01, HA: 9.01, soft: 40.0%, speed: 9.5
1947: SA: 23.51, HA: 13.51, soft: 40.0%, speed: 11.0
all: supply: 4.0, fuel: 3.4, IC days: 3638, MP: 8.32
3. Superior Firepower (all divisions with 3 combat brigades)
3 Arm + 2 SP Art (breakthrough)
1941: SA: 28.53, HA: 19.85, soft: 40.0%, speed: 7.5
1947: SA: 41.13, HA: 29.45, soft: 40.0%, speed: 9.0
all: supply: 5.33, fuel: 5.5, IC days: 6621, MP: 9.65
2 L.Arm + 1 Mec (exploitation)
1941: SA: 13.94, HA: 8.14, soft: 43.7%, speed: 9.8
1947: SA: 19.64, HA: 12.49, soft: 42.7%, speed: 10.4
all: supply: 3.33, fuel: 3.0, IC days: 3226, MP: 7.66
EDIT: I am not even sure I would pick the 2 Mec + 1 TD over the 2 L. Arm + 1 Mec as a division for counterattacks...
Last edited:
At a combat width of 2 (with the right techs) I don't see how it can be that limited (but I am open to explanation)
As another point - a 3xArm 1xSP arty costs 5875.6 total ICs and 8.32MP while a 2xArm 2xSP Arty costs 4911.2 total ICs and 7.32MP which is almost 20% less ICs and 13% less MP
There is a attack value trade off. The 3xArm 1xSP Arty has a 5% SA (24.06 vs 22.8) advantage and a 33% HA (22.93 vs 17.16) advantage per division using 1941 techs
However - taking the total ICs into account you would be able to produce 10 of the 3xArm 1xSp Arty for a total combined attack of 240.6 SA and 229.30 HA
You would be able to produce 12 divisions of 2xArm and 2xSp Arty for a total combines attack of 273.6 SA and 205.92 HA
This means that 12 divisions have a 14% greater SA value but a -11% HA value over the total # of divisions
It is my opinion that - over a large front (Say Murmansk down through Romania or even Turkey) that the greater # of units is more valuable and (at least at the time of this posting) that I have not encountered sufficient enemy armored formations to noticed a HA pentalty
With 3xArm 1xMot the equation changes slightly
A 3xArm and 1xMot has a 16% increase in IC cost (5690.4 vs 4911.2) over 2xArm and 2xSP Arty but a whopping 41% (10.32 vs 7.32)increase in MP in exchange for a 2% increase in SA (23.39 vs 22.8) and a 36% increase in HA (23.37 vs 17.16)
This also brings up an interesting consideration. It has been my experiance that support brigades typically do not take casualties until the combat brigades have taken heavy casulties/org loss. This may mean that the higher softness of the SP Arty does not take as many casulaties as the higher softness Mot as they are 'not on the front lines' while still adding the combined arms bonus to divisions. This may increase the MP cost of the 3xArm 1xMot even more - but I do not have hard facts to support this claim
Last edited:
You should also understand that having a lower width will mean you will have more divisions in combat at the same time which often are a tactical advantage, unless the stacking penalty kick in but for that you need quite alot of divisions to make a big impact.
Lets take an example from above....
Five Mechanized divisions (2 Mech, 1 TD) defends against...
Three Armored divisions (3 Arm, 1 Mot)
Roughly the same cost in IC...
Each hour each divisions will fire all its shot against one random division. In this case there are always at least two Mech divisions that will gang up on at least two Armored divisions, on occasion three of them will fire on the same one. While the Armor will rarely be able to gang up in the same Mech divisions since there are more of them. Once every three our there will be three mech division that gang up one armored division, and once every 2.5 hour there will be a gang up by the armor on one Mech division.
The Mech divisions will probably not be able to assault the Armor, but they will probably be able to defeat them in a defensive combat, which Mech and TD excel at.
Plus the defenders in this case has three more brigades and that more ORG to tale as a loss. Once one of those Armored divisions need to retreat the other two will shortly follow due to the heavy overload of attacks.
Lets take an example from above....
Five Mechanized divisions (2 Mech, 1 TD) defends against...
Three Armored divisions (3 Arm, 1 Mot)
Roughly the same cost in IC...
Each hour each divisions will fire all its shot against one random division. In this case there are always at least two Mech divisions that will gang up on at least two Armored divisions, on occasion three of them will fire on the same one. While the Armor will rarely be able to gang up in the same Mech divisions since there are more of them. Once every three our there will be three mech division that gang up one armored division, and once every 2.5 hour there will be a gang up by the armor on one Mech division.
The Mech divisions will probably not be able to assault the Armor, but they will probably be able to defeat them in a defensive combat, which Mech and TD excel at.
Plus the defenders in this case has three more brigades and that more ORG to tale as a loss. Once one of those Armored divisions need to retreat the other two will shortly follow due to the heavy overload of attacks.
Last edited:
You if you group your combat brigades into divisions of size 3 or 4, you can bring 12 of them into combat in one province. With 2 per division, you only get 10 using 5 divisions, at which point you also start suffering from stacking penalties. At the moment the stacking penalty is bugged (too low), so that stacks of doom (support brigade spamming) can be effective in some circumstances, but this will hopefully change in later versions. Small breakthrough divisions also do not make effective usage of your best leaders.
3 Arm + 1 SP Art is in principle a good idea, but it has a softness of 32.5%, which is lower than the minimum of 33% to qualify for combined arms bonus. This is why 3 Arm should preferably be combined with 1 AC or 2 SP Art. Using 2 Arm + 2 SP Art gives you poor frontage and potential stacking penalties (see above) and an increase in softness to 45%, which will create higher losses.
EDIT: An important point to consider when comparing IC days is practical knowledge. The "Blitzkrieg" option above, which does not need Mot or Mec at all, allows you to focus on armor practical, thus greatly decreasing build times and costs. It also speeds up the research of the corresponding techs, thereby conserving leadership.
Last edited:
It is not quite true, since the stacking penalty is not a linear function and it affects all divisions after kicking in at 5. But see comment above.
A little bit of an unfortunate example, since this should never happen.
Clearly having 15 brigades against 12 is an advantage (disregarding the stacking penalty), but a breakthrough will rarely be attempted against a bigger stack!
The only common scenario would be for TDs to counterattack Arms. Here, however, frontage is usually not an issue, since you have many provinces to attack from. In fact, speed is usually much more critical, since it will allow to position your forces in such a way that you can get envelopment bonuses from attacking over multiple front lines. And speed is the weakest point of the TD.
If you, however, do like TDs very much, the best TD combo is probably
1 Mot + 4 TD. You can use it to create stacks of doom taking advantage of the current problems with the stacking penalty. Such stacks will, of course, be immune to attack by hard divisions.
EDIT: Since I just copied the listings above from the previous page, I wanted to clarify the main point of the baseline divisions is that it allows you to conserve leadership (research). This allows either spending more on officers, focusing on other branches, or gaining a technological advantage (the comparisons above are made at the same tech level), For smaller nations, it may be the only way to keep up in the tech race.
Last edited:
I was not implying you should use 3xArm and 1xSP Arty - rather making arguments against it.
As noted earlier in my post - if its the case* that 2xArm 2xSP Arty takes a slightly higher number of MP losses it is still 40% less in original MP cost.
*I am not sold that it is. In my non-scientific observations (I wasn't paying that close of attention) losses among the support brigades always seemed to be less than the combat brigades. The combat brigades seemed to be much lower in str and org after a battle, especially losing ones
A further note on stacking penalties: I have yet to include more than 10 divisions in any single province battle so far meaning that - for me this issue is not important (as of this version of the game). I'm not saying it's not a valid point for consideration only that I view the increased # of units as outweighing this consideration
Edit: As for the practical knowledge reducing times due to the composition of the Armor it takes 90% of the ICs to make a 3xArm 1xSP Arty and 70% of the ICs to make a 2xArm 2xSP Arty the construction decrease time needs to approach 50% in order to make the 3xArm 1xSP Arty more cost effective - with no reduction of SP Arty build time
Last edited:
Although you have a few points the discussion is somewhat drifting away from what I tried to say.
In regard to the compositions of Divisions in HOI3 the tank is indeed faster than infantry. But IRL the speed of advance has much more to to with doctrines than hardware.
The "Blitzkrieg" as we call it today, was not successful because of tanks driving full tilt behind enemy lines. A major reason why it was successful was because fast combat decisions, and fast maneuvering decisions by lower echelon commanders and individual soldiers were strongly encouraged in the Wehrmacht during ww2.
The point is that this is not represented in HOI3 (it should possibly be technology activated special combat events). And as such one cannot make a historical comparison between AFK units and HOI3 units "speed".
Of course, of course. I was just saying that doctrines bend to the assets available. A massively productive nation can easily use the doctrine of superior firepower and maneuver; a populous one overwhelms with massive numbers; and ones with an army orientated towards very high subordinate independence and an emphasis on mechanization will prefer high-speed mechanized warfare relying on armor to break through and smash logistics while infantry wall off the line of advance.
It wasn't successful because of the machines; it was successful because of how capably those machines were used. This is wholly true.
Actually, it is competently represented if you use the practice of mechanized warfare. The only reason that I personally didn't see it as much is that I used my heavy mechanized divisions with heavy engineer support to punch through the Maginot Line at its strongest points while Spain swallowed the southern provinces and heavily supported infantry divisions swept into Paris and along the coast--with Fallshamjager element landing in London. Not as much chance for breakthrough armored warfare, sadly, although Guerdadin did good service getting me Warsaw in his light tanks.
my arm divisions
I keep mech with light armor so I can get the maximum speed of 10. For normal armor, mech or mot will work. If i do 2 armor and one mot/mec i add a sp-art to up the soft attack value.
I sometimes make one armor killing brigade with only tanks and TD if I anticipate running into tanks. I can break up the division after the threat is delt with.
I keep mech with light armor so I can get the maximum speed of 10. For normal armor, mech or mot will work. If i do 2 armor and one mot/mec i add a sp-art to up the soft attack value.
I sometimes make one armor killing brigade with only tanks and TD if I anticipate running into tanks. I can break up the division after the threat is delt with.
I know.
I just think the killer argument against 3 Arm + 1 SP Art is the loss of the combined arms bonus. Adding 1 AC instead of the SP Art is simply much better.But my take on it is that 2 Arm + 2 SP Art is also clearly inferior to 3 Arm + 2 SP Art, for the reasons I mentioned above.
Thus, to me the main choice seems to be 3 Arm + 1 AC or 3 Arm + 2 SP Art. Would be nice to hear your take on this!
EDIT: I also like the fast 3 L.Arm + 1 SP R Art combo that comes with 3 Arm + 1 AC. This one actually does get the combined arms bonus since the softness of L.Arm is higher.
Last edited:
I agree with both points. It seems to me that support brigades loose less than combat brigades, which is why I do not upgrade my AC, just put them with L. Arm for speed (the only one that can keep up in early game) and the combined arms bonus.
I also have not had to worry about stacking penalties yet, probably also a late game consideration.
I think there should be several different ideal combos that we should be talking about. It depends upon WHEN. So before Mech inf is developed, L Arm and AC are best for speed. As others have pointed out in the game as in the real war Hard (or AT) values of infantry was low, and L arm is useful. As the war progressed IRL and game, it became less useful. So lets divide into 3 timelines, the best. Early( pre 40), middle(41-43)and end game (44+) or whenever certain units are developed.
I actually find Heavy armor with no support units very good early (with 10% softness), but gradually becomes less useful, needing to be relagated to defense stacked with softer types.
The time factor is indeed important, and is the reason I put down values for both 1941 and 1947. I have a feeling, though, due to some of the pre-1.2 problems, few players have gone much beyond the buildup phase, which actually is a time when very little happens (unless you are Japan, perhaps).
Since most of the 1941 techs actually are 1940, they are quite representative of the situation at the very beginning of the war in Europe.
If, however, you want to build early combos that you know will not work later, or at least not be very effective, you should perhaps think of a good strategy for dealing with the units you no longer need.
Not upgrading AC may not be a great way. Certainly, the enemy will first try to attack the brigades that pose most threat, but the AC still gets to shoot!
The "Blitskrieg" strategy I outlined above is nice, because you reap huge benefits from it over time. You start by building probably the best attack combo (3 Arm + AC) from the very beginning, and let these units gain experience until they are unstoppable. You also can focus your practical on armor rather than motorized, which builds up huge bonuses in production and research (leadership). In general, a concentration of effort is to your advantage. The advent of R Art nicely rounds out the concept, and lets continue to produce armor, in a new combo, keeping up your practical knowledge, making repairs of battle damage cheaper. This more complete approach not only gives you combos that stays powerful throughout the period, but is truly a strategic choice.
In analogy "Superior Firepower" is very good for a country that places less emphasis on mobile warfare. It is, for instance, ideal for the US, which in its Pacific campaign cannot fully utilize armor. But here you often fight on small patches of ground, where support in the form of artillery becomes essential. But you also fully utilize this in your strategy for the construction of mobile units.
Since most of the 1941 techs actually are 1940, they are quite representative of the situation at the very beginning of the war in Europe.
If, however, you want to build early combos that you know will not work later, or at least not be very effective, you should perhaps think of a good strategy for dealing with the units you no longer need.
Not upgrading AC may not be a great way. Certainly, the enemy will first try to attack the brigades that pose most threat, but the AC still gets to shoot!
The "Blitskrieg" strategy I outlined above is nice, because you reap huge benefits from it over time. You start by building probably the best attack combo (3 Arm + AC) from the very beginning, and let these units gain experience until they are unstoppable. You also can focus your practical on armor rather than motorized, which builds up huge bonuses in production and research (leadership). In general, a concentration of effort is to your advantage. The advent of R Art nicely rounds out the concept, and lets continue to produce armor, in a new combo, keeping up your practical knowledge, making repairs of battle damage cheaper. This more complete approach not only gives you combos that stays powerful throughout the period, but is truly a strategic choice.
In analogy "Superior Firepower" is very good for a country that places less emphasis on mobile warfare. It is, for instance, ideal for the US, which in its Pacific campaign cannot fully utilize armor. But here you often fight on small patches of ground, where support in the form of artillery becomes essential. But you also fully utilize this in your strategy for the construction of mobile units.
My normal armor combination is [for normal assaults and defense]:
2 Med Armor
1 Infantry
1 AT
I also use [for protecting the flanks/rears of my army]:
2 Med Armor
1 Mechanized
1 SP Artillery
and [for heavy assaults on cities and fortified locations]:
2 Heavy Armor
2 Mechanized
2 Med Armor
1 Infantry
1 AT
I also use [for protecting the flanks/rears of my army]:
2 Med Armor
1 Mechanized
1 SP Artillery
and [for heavy assaults on cities and fortified locations]:
2 Heavy Armor
2 Mechanized
Coming a bit late to the party, but I personally use the standard German TO&E for a Panzer Grenadier Korps. Why, because it worked quite well for the Germans in WW2 is why.
x2 Divisons of
2 mech inf
1 med armour
1 SP art
and x1 of
2 med arm
1 mech inf
1 TD
to make up one PZGrenadier Korps. I then group these in to an army consisting of x2 PzGren Korps as above with a straight armoured corps of:
2 Divisions of
2 med armour
1 mot inf
1 TD
when the Superior Firepower tech is researched, I usually add an additional Engineer brigade to each of the divisions (for mobility and bridging, not assault). HQ units also each have attached AA, MP and Eng brigades.
But that is just my workhorse.
A standard panzerarmee for me has x2 armoured corps (as above) and x1 infantry corps (x2 mot inf, 1 TD, 1 SP art). Things change somewhat when heavy armour becomes available.
I never use armoured for assault unless it's to punch through a line. They are never ever used to assault prepared, fortified or built up (military for population centers) positions. In real world if armour did that they would get eaten alive. Straight legs do assaults with attached engineers. If you are able to do that here with good success, then it's a limitation of the design and an exploit as infantry eat armour for breakfast in built up and fortified positions.
For that matter, infantry can stand up quite well to armour (ask any treadhead what gives 'em more pucker - another tank on open or even broken ground or an infantryman with AT who can hide). All this falderall and nitpicking is good for some things, but in this case, the above organization has been proven to work in real world blood and sweat terms.
x2 Divisons of
2 mech inf
1 med armour
1 SP art
and x1 of
2 med arm
1 mech inf
1 TD
to make up one PZGrenadier Korps. I then group these in to an army consisting of x2 PzGren Korps as above with a straight armoured corps of:
2 Divisions of
2 med armour
1 mot inf
1 TD
when the Superior Firepower tech is researched, I usually add an additional Engineer brigade to each of the divisions (for mobility and bridging, not assault). HQ units also each have attached AA, MP and Eng brigades.
But that is just my workhorse.
A standard panzerarmee for me has x2 armoured corps (as above) and x1 infantry corps (x2 mot inf, 1 TD, 1 SP art). Things change somewhat when heavy armour becomes available.
I never use armoured for assault unless it's to punch through a line. They are never ever used to assault prepared, fortified or built up (military for population centers) positions. In real world if armour did that they would get eaten alive. Straight legs do assaults with attached engineers. If you are able to do that here with good success, then it's a limitation of the design and an exploit as infantry eat armour for breakfast in built up and fortified positions.
For that matter, infantry can stand up quite well to armour (ask any treadhead what gives 'em more pucker - another tank on open or even broken ground or an infantryman with AT who can hide). All this falderall and nitpicking is good for some things, but in this case, the above organization has been proven to work in real world blood and sweat terms.