It is a gamey solution that would not be used for a standard Infantry division. This limits the utility of a division significantly.
-
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.
It is a gamey solution that would not be used for a standard Infantry division. This limits the utility of a division significantly.
Since support brigades (like ART) have only about 1/3rd the Manpower of line brigades (like INF), an equal distribution of casualties will leave the ART at about 25% strength when the INF reaches about 75% strength. Not sure if casualties are equally distributed or pro-rated in-game... but that might be the answer. Personally, I don't find the ART casualties to be much of a handicap, because as Germany I usually attack at selected spots in overwhelming strength, rather than making attritional attacks all along the line; while as USSR my entire early-war goal is heavy mutual attrition, and I always keep entire replacement Corps available just behind the front line, to rotate whole Corps in and out of the fighting. The Russians have the Manpower income to support that sort of attrition for years, the Germans don't.
The main advantages of my INFx2/ARTx2 build are:
1) Manpower efficiency. A six-Division 2+2 Corps (five 2+2 Infantry Division and one 1+1+2 HQ Division) actually costs fewer total Manpower than a regular five-Division Corps of INFx3/ARTx1 plus detached HQ. That means that I can build six manoever elements for a smaller Manpower outlay than most people pay for five manoever elements. Unit firepower is roughly equal (or even a bit higher) at comperable tech levels, so with six units instead of five, that gives me a +22% firepower edge at a lower Manpower cost.
2) Concentration of fire. With all six Corps units attacking across a one-province front, I get 24 Regiments in the attack instead of the usual 12 or 16. That's at least a +50% edge over the usual build-schema. Stacking penalties and terrain modifiers erode this edge somewhat, but don't come anywhere close to cancelling it out... especially after you've learned the Doctrine that gives a reduction to the unit cooperation penalty and appointed a high-skill Theatre commander. Also worth noting is that the stacking penalty is signifigantly reduced as the frontage expands, dropping to zero by the time you are attacking from four directions. Four attack directions gives an unpenalized stacking limit of (4 x 3) + 1 = 13, and also gives a total frontage of (1 + 4) x 5 = 25, which can accomodate thirteen 2-width units... by happy chance, it works out to a stacking penalty of exactly zero.
3) Research and Practicals. With only two unit types (no AT, no ENG, etc) I only need to research two sets of equipment techs and Doctrines... and ART only needs one Doctrine. My research will be fast and efficient, since the same Theoreticals will get pumped each time. Similar remarks apply to Practicals... I'll be building literally hundreds of ART, so both my build-time/cost and my research speed will benefit.
The main advantages of my INFx2/ARTx2 build are:
1) Manpower efficiency. A six-Division 2+2 Corps (five 2+2 Infantry Division and one 1+1+2 HQ Division) actually costs fewer total Manpower than a regular five-Division Corps of INFx3/ARTx1 plus detached HQ. That means that I can build six manoever elements for a smaller Manpower outlay than most people pay for five manoever elements. Unit firepower is roughly equal (or even a bit higher) at comperable tech levels, so with six units instead of five, that gives me a +22% firepower edge at a lower Manpower cost.
2) Concentration of fire. With all six Corps units attacking across a one-province front, I get 24 Regiments in the attack instead of the usual 12 or 16. That's at least a +50% edge over the usual build-schema. Stacking penalties and terrain modifiers erode this edge somewhat, but don't come anywhere close to cancelling it out... especially after you've learned the Doctrine that gives a reduction to the unit cooperation penalty and appointed a high-skill Theatre commander. Also worth noting is that the stacking penalty is signifigantly reduced as the frontage expands, dropping to zero by the time you are attacking from four directions. Four attack directions gives an unpenalized stacking limit of (4 x 3) + 1 = 13, and also gives a total frontage of (1 + 4) x 5 = 25, which can accomodate thirteen 2-width units... by happy chance, it works out to a stacking penalty of exactly zero.
3) Research and Practicals. With only two unit types (no AT, no ENG, etc) I only need to research two sets of equipment techs and Doctrines... and ART only needs one Doctrine. My research will be fast and efficient, since the same Theoreticals will get pumped each time. Similar remarks apply to Practicals... I'll be building literally hundreds of ART, so both my build-time/cost and my research speed will benefit.
I congratulate you for starting a very interestin thread, secondly the first decision to be made is to whether real life , As far as possible is your aim for your build, or do you want to build divisions that conform to the parameters of the game in order to win. Personally the former appeals to me and am investigating the ways in which some of the "support" units can, as a brigade size unit be attached to HQ's.
Keep it up guys!
Keep it up guys!
That could indeed be the case.
I guess that could be worth some testing.
Now the question is: Does INF/INF/ART/ART allow the germans do field enough frontline combat power to withstand soviet counterattacks? Against the AI you will always have a tech lead, so it should be no real problem - but what if you had to fight on "ralistic" tech terms with both sides being played by a human player?
Apart from these three, doesn't ART also provide more hard attack per MP (and maybe even IC?) than INF? So it's not only concentration of fire, but also overall better anti-tank performance. Unfortunatly I have no chance to access the game files atm, so I can't look it up myself.
You need them more or less to protect vital ports, landing areas and to guard cities against partisans. One of the things I like about SF is that its now possible to upgrade gar later in the game to inf, arm, etc.
When I play England i use cheap and quick to construct gar to guard all the ports of the UK. It frees the infantry units deployed so they can be used elsewhere. But as soon as the German navy is defeated and the threat of an invasion, which rarely happens anyway, is gone, I'll convert them.
I have tried supporting units like eng, at, aa, etc. But i dont really seem the point of constructing and researching them. The only supporting unit i ever construct is art so that my inf has a bigger punch and art has has the advantage that it doesnt use combat width.
What i have found is that as long as your arm and inf tech are up to date (doctrine and practical), you can achieve what you set out to do. It also frees leadership to research more important things and man power to construct more div.
Its very gamey to play this way. But I would love to hear from anyone what the use of supporting units is, because i just cant see its use in its current form. I also would like to hear how people go about it because in most cases the starting tech date is very poor of supporting units. So when is the tech of supporting units up to date? Do you need to research them constantly or can you, just like art, research them till 1938/40 to be effective?
What i have found is that as long as your arm and inf tech are up to date (doctrine and practical), you can achieve what you set out to do. It also frees leadership to research more important things and man power to construct more div.
Its very gamey to play this way. But I would love to hear from anyone what the use of supporting units is, because i just cant see its use in its current form. I also would like to hear how people go about it because in most cases the starting tech date is very poor of supporting units. So when is the tech of supporting units up to date? Do you need to research them constantly or can you, just like art, research them till 1938/40 to be effective?
ENG is definatly a very weak unit in vanilla. Even when used in pairs to improve terrain penalty calculations, the effect is pretty minor.
AT is not that bad, but most nations have the IC to build TD brigades which are much stronger. Plus: Against the AI, there is usually no need for anti-tank warfare.
AA is some sort of an allround defensive brigade: Decent against airplanes, provides some hard attack against tanks and is not totally defenceless against infantry either and heavy AA divisions (like INF/AA/AA/AA) should probably do well against enemy bombers. I will try a GER game with INF/INF/ART/AA and see if this setup can partially substitue frontline air cover.
AT is not that bad, but most nations have the IC to build TD brigades which are much stronger. Plus: Against the AI, there is usually no need for anti-tank warfare.
AA is some sort of an allround defensive brigade: Decent against airplanes, provides some hard attack against tanks and is not totally defenceless against infantry either and heavy AA divisions (like INF/AA/AA/AA) should probably do well against enemy bombers. I will try a GER game with INF/INF/ART/AA and see if this setup can partially substitue frontline air cover.
Whats the opinion on HARM divs in MP? I was thinking they could be useful for defending in s. Russia, or in north Africa. Could they be useful elsewhere or in a different role? Would pure divs be better, or does the benefit of combined arms overweigh? Do pure HARM benefit from panzer leaders?
I am with blue emu on INT/INT/ART/ART for the reasons stated, but also because it adds modularity to your forces. You can split up a division into two divisions of INT/ART and these "maniples", as I call them, can defend coastal territories from invasion, interior provinces from rebels and can at least hold the line in combat when the front widens and there are no additional forces at hand. Then the reverse is also true. If I need to, I can join two maniples acting as garrisons together and form a first rate front line division.
This is actually two seperate questions. There is the question of battle-winning ability (BWA), and the almost unconnected question of casualty ratios. It's entirely possible to win every battle except the last and most critical one, which you lose because you've taken too many casualties along the way.
BWA is the product (A x B) of the ability to inflict damage multiplied by the ability to withstand damage while still fighting strongly. Between equal-tech and equal-firepower opponents, an advantage in numbers gives a BWA advantage directly proportional to the SQUARE of the difference in forces... eg: if you outnumber your opponent three times over, you have a nine-to-one advantage in battle-winning ability.
The ability to win battles is critically important in sharp, decisive campaigns such as the Battle of France, where the opponent lacks the operational depth to fight an attritional campaign and cannot fall back without being annexed. It has much less influence in protracted campaigns, where loss-ratios start to become more important than battlefield victories. Note that IRL, if the USSR had the same efficient road net and the same lack of operational depth as France, they would have been annexed in a single campaigning season, since the German penetration into Russia was actually deeper and faster than their penetration into France. What saved the USSR was the much greater operational depth of that theatre, allowing them to lose battle after battle, continually drawing the Germans deeper into Russia, where they could be bled to death by attrition.
The 2+2 build offers high firepower per Manpower. Assuming that Manpower is a key constraint on the maximum size of your Army, this build-schema allows you to field 20% more units, each with a slight firepower edge over the usual 3+1 Infantry. Assuming that the 2+2 and 3+1 units can take similar levels of losses, this should give you a BWA advantage of about 40%... perhaps 25-30% if the 3+1 can withstand somewhat more casualties than the 2+2.
As far as the question of loss-ratios, that should also work out slightly in the 2+2's favor... both because of its somewhat higher firepower and also because of its inherent BWA advantage which shortens the combat and reduces the number of effective shots that the enemy gets to fire at you.
I played an 'AAR-like' game in the August Storm sub-Forum, playing the USSR in an attritional defense against the German Barbarossa invasion and using the 2+2 Infantry build. It's worth reading over:
Link: My Crazy USSR Game...
The 2+2 has higher Hard attack in the early and early-mid war, but is overtaken by the 3+1 by late war.
Blue, have followed your many posts on this subject with great interest. I understand the use of 2+2's under hard, very hard settings, mods, etc., and it's cool as far as I'm concerned "so long as whatever happens in SP games, stays within the confines of SP games."
My concern is this strategy bleeding over into MP. Imagine a kind of brinksmanship where if one side deploys 2+2s the other side must as well. If so, MP games could routinely descend into bland, formulistic struggles, devoid of imagination or innovation.
So, my question is; now that you've created this monster Dr. Frankenstein, what's the defense against it? How can one defeat it as a human-player?
Actually, the strategy has several vulnerabilities. I'm not offering it as "the perfect plan"... just as a playable alternative to the standard 3+1 build, which was (as you say) getting rather formulistic.
Vulnerabilities:
1) Stacking penalty. Paradox has recently nerfed my build-schema somewhat by doubling the Land-combat stacking penalty. That means that a full-up six unit single-province attack now faces a base stacking penalty of -19% instead of -9%... more than doubled. The revised penalty looks even harsher after you factor in the Theatre commander's bonus. For example, a skill-3 Theatre commander like von Blomberg would reduce the -19%/-9% new/old comparison to -16%/-6%... now nearly triple the original penalty.
2) Terrain penalties. Artillery is penalized more than Infantry in most terrains, but especially so in Amphibious Operations. In that specific case, the penalty is so harsh that you are actually better off just ditching the ART and attacking only with the Infantry component (with 2+0 instead of 2+2). Other terrains draw a smaller penalty for the ART, but still larger than INF suffers. Note that this is true for movement rate as well as combat efficiency... ART has the same BASE movement as INF, but suffers worse movement modifiers in many terrain types.
3) Air Attack. Recent patches to the game have given ART a special (doubled?) vulnerability to Air Attack. Also, even if we were to ignore that new "special rule", ART has a lower base Air Defense and a much lower base Air Attack stat than INF.
4) Leadership requirements. In my short presentation above, I said "... assuming that Manpower is a key constraint on the maximum size of your Army...", but what if Leadership is a key constraint? Since the 2+2 build uses a high proportion of 1000-man Regiments which each require the same Officer ratio as 3000-man INF Regiments, my 2+2 build will require about 20% more Officers than the more typical 3+1 build. Those extra Officers aren't free... so either my Officer Ratio will only be 83% of yours (5/6ths), or I must divert Leadership from research into Officers, putting me behind the curve on new technology.
5) IC-days and Supply. My six-Division 2+2 Corps are signifigantly slower and more expensive to build than the more typical five-Division 3+1 Corps, and are quite a bit more Supply-intensive. What if... instead of Manpower being a major constraint, suppose TIME or supply throughput is the main bottleneck? That would change the parameters of the force-selection game, no?
"1 AA brg
1 TD brg
1 mech/mot brg
1 sp art brg
1 eng brg"
4 high speed units out of 5 as a static defense unit? That seems incredibly wasteful to me but I guess in SP vanilla anything goes.
What in your opinions are the best city and river assaulting units (except marines I suppose since they are obviously the best but can't be deployed everywhere you want to pass a defended river)?
1 TD brg
1 mech/mot brg
1 sp art brg
1 eng brg"
4 high speed units out of 5 as a static defense unit? That seems incredibly wasteful to me but I guess in SP vanilla anything goes.
What in your opinions are the best city and river assaulting units (except marines I suppose since they are obviously the best but can't be deployed everywhere you want to pass a defended river)?
I personally always use 3xinf+support, unless I'm playing Spain, Italy, or another country that has low MP/IC and needs lots of divisions. For what you described, infantry with an attached engineer brigade would be best. Yes, the engineers need fuel and their speed benefit is wasted on infantry, but their combat bonus is more than worth it. You can always move the engineer brigade to a faster unit later.
Yeah I agree with you. Was wondering what combination of INF-ENG brigades would be the most efficient.
Actually, I stand corrected. ENG only adds a big % bonus and a very small flat bonus. If you do the math, it ends up that using BASE stats with no other modifiers other than urban (so removing experience, leaders, techs, etc), a formation of 3xINF+ENG gives you 4.43 soft attack, while 2xINF+2xENG gives you 3.73 soft attack.
In contrast, a 3xINF+ART would give you 5 soft attack, and a 2xINF+2xART gives you 5.20 soft attack in urban areas.
So, on paper it seems like 2xINF+2xART is the king of the battlefield. However, you should also keep in mind that ART has very low defense values and divisions with them will take heavier losses than a division with engineers. I also didn't include tech upgrades, though I think it wouldn't really matter in the end.
I recall there being an AAR that discussed this very issue. The result was that an army of 2xINF+2xART, when compared to an army of 4xINF, performs much faster than the inf-only army, but takes more casualties. In the end It comes down to personal preference really. Do you want to win quickly while losing more MP, or win slower while losing less MP?
In contrast, a 3xINF+ART would give you 5 soft attack, and a 2xINF+2xART gives you 5.20 soft attack in urban areas.
So, on paper it seems like 2xINF+2xART is the king of the battlefield. However, you should also keep in mind that ART has very low defense values and divisions with them will take heavier losses than a division with engineers. I also didn't include tech upgrades, though I think it wouldn't really matter in the end.
I recall there being an AAR that discussed this very issue. The result was that an army of 2xINF+2xART, when compared to an army of 4xINF, performs much faster than the inf-only army, but takes more casualties. In the end It comes down to personal preference really. Do you want to win quickly while losing more MP, or win slower while losing less MP?
I highly doubt that ENG is really a good choise. Remember, if you use INF/INF/INF/ENG, the effective bonus from ENG will only apply partially, since it is weighted with the modifiers of all additional brigades.
So if ENG has, let's say +50% river attack and INF had -30% river attack, an INF/INF/INF/ENG division would still suffer a (-0.3*3 + 0.5)/4 = -0.1 = -10% penalty.
I guess two corps of INF/INF/ENG/ENG can be useful against the maginotline, but apart from that, I see few reasons why to use engineers, let alone research their techs.
The motorised and mechanized infantry are specialist combat troops. The regular infantry divisions are the real strength of the army. Why regular infantry are so important, is very difficult to difine, but, having played Hearts of Iron, I realize, that they have the correct mix of a well rounded combat option. They can be both offensive, and defensive, they can act as a garrison force too. They make up the real numbers, in the army. In every army, it is the regular personnel who direct the affairs of specialist divisions/formations/etc.
Does this take into account upgrades to your units? If I have Level IV INF/INF+ART/ART divisions but I am facing a mixed bag of Level II/III INF/INF/INF+ART divisions, won't I still last against these fights? They would not get the combined arms bonus, would they?
Their attack value is
river attack = 0.75
urban attack = 0.4
To be distributed among the participating units.
I see a few useful purposes for this, admittedly expensive, unit. But only during special circumstances of course.