Baller division designs

[Alexlazer]

Can someone please decisively and firmly assert what are the best Infantry, Mobile/Mechanized and Armored divisions templates in the game?

And could we cut the "to each country his own" crap? I'm just asking what wins you the game versus majors in higher difficulties, the go-to design, the most popular, OP and commonly approved basically.

 

[Jamey]

Do you want the divison with the most combat power, or the most cost effective? Do you want the best you can produce with a particular country's resources? Or are you willing to spend many factories to get resources that you are short on? Are you willing to spend all resources on your army, or do you also need to spend them on planes and/or ships?

In short, things along the lines of "to each country their own" are said because that is the best answer to the question that you are asking.

 

[Regaccio]

I personally like to use 9 inf/3 art with an Engineer company as the basic cheap division.

Then, if possible, I'd replace the Infantry with Mountaineers and Marines, the reason being that those troops types edit: have significant bonuses over regular infantry in certain types of terrain or when crossing rivers and don't cost that much more (40 Infantry Eq. more per Mountaineer, 50 more per Marine). You can decide how much of each to use based on where you're fighting, so for example if you're going to be crossing a lot of rivers but not so many mountains, maybe use 5 marines and 4 mountaineers; but if you're going to be fighting in the hills and mountains and not crossing as many rivers, then you can use 6 mountaineers and 3 marines.

Then after that if I can afford it, I'd add a Light Tank to the division to add some Breakthrough, which is useful. This can be replaced with a Medium Tank II later on. I'd also add a Maintenance Company when doing this because it helps a lot.

Next, over the course of the game, I'd gradually replace the 3 line Artillery with Medium Self-Propelled Artillery. You could also add other support companies like a Field Hospital or Anti-Air, but personally I don't think Support Artillery is worth it except for paratroopers, who obviously can't have line artillery and still need Art of some kind.

I'm by no means an expert but this is what I usually do and it tends to melt AI divisions like butter. Even for minors that can't afford the M-SPG or lots of tanks, the basic cheap 5 Mnt/4 Mar/3 Art/Eng setup is pretty good in my experience.

Oh, and you're probably going to want some faster divisions to do encirclements or beeline to certain provinces or whatever. Some people say using Cavalry is just fine and more cost-effective than using Motorized/Mechanized/Armor divisions, but personally I prefer Mot/Mech if I can manage it. For super poor countries of course Cav will have to do. But to put it simply, I don't think "mobile" and "armored" divisions need to be a separate thing, I usually just use a little armor in my generic division for some breakthrough and hardness, and then have some mobile divisions which also include armor. However I suppose if you want your divisions to have a very high Armor stat you can stick a single Heavy Tank in there.

 

[Dalwin]

Then, if possible, I'd replace the Infantry with Mountaineers and Marines, the reason being that those troops types cost the same as infantry but have significant bonuses in certain types of terrain or when crossing rivers. You can decide how much of each to use based on where you're fighting, so for example if you're going to be crossing a lot of rivers but not so many mountains, maybe use 5 marines and 4 mountaineers; but if you're going to be fighting in the hills and mountains and not crossing as many rivers, then you can use 6 mountaineers and 3 marines.

I am not sure what gave you the idea that infantry costs the same as specialty infantry. This is very much not true.

Compare the stats per battalion. Mountain costs 40% more equipment, takes 40% longer to train.

The specialty units certainly have their place. And if you think you can afford to skip regular infantry completely, that is up to you, but do it for the right reasons and not because you are misunderstanding the game system.

 

[Regaccio]

I am not sure what gave you the idea that infantry costs the same as specialty infantry. This is very much not true.

Compare the stats per battalion. Mountain costs 40% more equipment, takes 40% longer to train, uses 100% more manpower.

The specialty units certainly have their place. And if you think you can afford to skip regular infantry completely, that is up to you, but do it for the right reasons and not because you are misunderstanding the game system.

You're right, I made a mistake. I thought they cost the same as ordinary infantry but actually they cost more, 40 more inf. eq per Mountaineer and 50 more per Marine. I've edited this into my post. Mountaineers/Marines do not use any extra manpower compared to regular Inf though, nor do they take longer to train, not sure where you're getting that from. I just checked and it only consumes extra equipment.

Even still, I think they are very cost effective. Of course if you're a super poor minor you'll have to consider whether or not to use them but personally, I'd always use specialty infantry if I can afford it. If you do the math, replacing an Infantry with a Mountaineer adds 0.9 Org and gives significant bonuses in Hills and Mountains at the cost of 40 Inf Eq, while replacing it with a Marine gives the same but adds attack bonuses over Rivers, in Amphibious situations, or in Marshes at the cost of 50 Inf eq. Meanwhile, adding an extra infantry takes 1000 Manpower, 100 Inf Eq, and only adds 0.7 Organization. In other words:

• Upgrading Inf to Mtn > +0.0225 Org per Inf Eq
  
• Upgrading Inf to Mar > +0.018 Org per Inf Eq
• Adding an Inf division > +0.014 Org per Inf Eq.

Now obviously, there are other big benefits to adding extra units to a division, but my point is that the specialty infantry may be more cost effective when you're purely looking at Organization. And of course Organization is important because, besides the obvious, you can also sacrifice it in order to add other useful things to a division like Armor or support companies.

Again, I'm not an expert though so I could be totally misguided in my logic here, but in my view if you can afford the equipment then changing your regular Infantry to specialty Infantry is a good way to upgrade your divisions with more Org and some bonuses, and it doesn't add combat width, unit weight, use additional manpower, or sacrifice Piercing or Hardness values.

 

[Alexlazer]

Do you want the divison with the most combat power, or the most cost effective? Do you want the best you can produce with a particular country's resources? Or are you willing to spend many factories to get resources that you are short on? Are you willing to spend all resources on your army, or do you also need to spend them on planes and/or ships?

In short, things along the lines of "to each country their own" are said because that is the best answer to the question that you are asking.

I want the kind of divisions that you'd be producing as the USSR in 1940 while winning the war and having 100+ military factories and not a single care in the world for resources, that sums it up eh

 

[Zwirbaum]

Special Infantry is also taking more damage per each hit suffered due to lower HP. (20 vs 25 of regular infantru, unless we're talking about paratroopers (22)). Which means much more equipment destroyed by each hit, and bigger manpower loss.

The thing is, it's good to check Military High Command and modify stats/setup of the division so you can get the boosts accordingly.
EXAMPLE:
Playing as Australia? You want divisions counting as Artillery divisions so if you are not bound by some house rule you can go for either 4 INF/4ART, 11INF/6ART, 8INF/8ART or 7INF/7MTN(MAR)/4ART and now your divisions get +30% Attack and Defense.

 

[Alexlazer]

GOD damn wasn't I specific enough ?

 

[browd]

Nope.

 

[Opanashc]

GOD damn wasn't I specific enough ?

Infinite IC and resources? Spam Tanks Mech. Specific enough for you?

 

[Strosstruppen]

1 Heavy TD
12 mountaineers or marines
6 Arty

Upgrade arty to advanced. Throw in a field martial that has -10% combat width to make that 40 wide.

Honestly I haven't space muhreened in a while but I'm pretty sure its still the be all template people never want to post because its a super nerd secret or something.

 

[Regaccio]

OP's question and this discussion made me curious, so I've looked around for guides on how to make the "ultimate" division, even given infinite resources, and answers obviously seem to vary between people. I made some of the divisions I've found in-game for stats comparison and such.

Spoiler: Steam Guide division

Spoiler: Strosstruppen's division

Spoiler: Reddit Inf Division (20 Width)

Spoiler: Reddit Armor Division (20 Width)

Spoiler: Paradox QA suggested Infantry Division (20 Width)

The general theme for what the "best division" should have seems to be

• 100+ Org
• 1000+ Soft Attack
• 100+ Hard Attack
• 70+ Piercing
• High breakthrough
• Use MNT/MAR instead of regular INF
  
• Always include Engineers and include Maintenance if using armor
• Don't bother including more than one H-TD since just one is enough to give you the Armor
  
• Width is either 20 or 40, after doctrines/leaders

 

[TheOrangeGuy]

OP's question and this discussion made me curious, so I've looked around for guides on how to make the "ultimate" division, even given infinite resources, and answers obviously seem to vary between people. I made some of the divisions I've found in-game for stats comparison and such.

Spoiler: Steam Guide division

Spoiler: Strosstruppen's division

Spoiler: Reddit Inf Division (20 Width)

Spoiler: Reddit Armor Division (20 Width)

Spoiler: Paradox QA suggested Infantry Division (20 Width)

The general theme for what the "best division" should have seems to be

• 100+ Org
• 1000+ Soft Attack
• 100+ Hard Attack
• 70+ Piercing
• High breakthrough
• Use MNT/MAR instead of regular INF
  
• Always include Engineers and include Maintenance if using armor
• Don't bother including more than one H-TD since just one is enough to give you the Armor
  
• Width is either 20 or 40, after doctrines/leaders

Is that medium or heavy AA? Medium tanks? Medium SPG? Nato templates would come in handy here

 

[Celdur]

I want the kind of divisions that you'd be producing as the USSR in 1940 while winning the war and having 100+ military factories and not a single care in the world for resources, that sums it up eh

It still depends, are you winning with few but strong divisions or a huge number of weaker divisions? (inf)

What kind of breakthroughs do you favor? decisive or deep? one favors 40w the other 20w. (tanks)


And of course if you are winning then you need air superiority as well.

 

[Zwirbaum]

Is that medium or heavy AA? Medium tanks? Medium SPG? Nato templates would come in handy here

NATO symbols would be easier to figure out, but thankfully there is equipment summary to the right (Like Modern Tanks 150 etc.)

In case of first template 4 Modern SP-ART and 3 Modern Tanks. 1 Mechanized. 4 Mountaineers and 4 Marines.

I'm too lazy for the rest of the templates, it's sunday after all

 

[TheOrangeGuy]

NATO symbols would be easier to figure out, but thankfully there is equipment summary to the right (Like Modern Tanks 150 etc.)

In case of first template 4 Modern SP-ART and 3 Modern Tanks. 1 Mechanized. 4 Mountaineers and 4 Marines.

I'm too lazy for the rest of the templates, it's sunday after all

Ahh true, I didn't think about the equipment summary!

 

[Misaka_Complex]

I want the kind of divisions that you'd be producing as the USSR in 1940 while winning the war and having 100+ military factories and not a single care in the world for resources, that sums it up eh

Here you go, this is what you should be making in 1940 as USSR while winning the war with 100 military factories. Add in an AT gun support company to your infantry when playing in MP, AT-guns aren't needed for SP against the AI.

 

[Celdur]

Misaka, what CPU do you have?

 

[Misaka_Complex]

Misaka, what CPU do you have?

Something that's more than 6 years old, why ask?

 

[cyklic]

I don't really agree with some of the suggestions above that put armour and infantry in the same division. That's basically doing what the French did in 1940, and we know how that ended up. One of the main advantages of armour is speed, especially if you're using light/medium/modern. By mixing infantry and light/medium/modern armour, you nullify that advantage right off the bat. If you absolutely want more breakthrough on your line infantry divisions, then it really only makes sense to use heavy armour, cause it isn't fast and it has higher breakthrough/hardness. The downside is of course that that's expensive, but since you're playing as the USSR, that isn't really a concern.

I reckon you should have infantry divisions to hold the line or make general front advances and armoured divisions to do concentrated breakthroughs and encirclements. So back to your original question, I suggest you have 7INF/2ART for infantry divisions (or the 40 width equivalent) and 4 medium armour/3 mech/2 medium SPART for armour divisions. And of course, add the appropriate support companies e.g. engineers/recon/hospital/logistics etc. And if you're so inclined (and have the infantry equipment to spare), you can swap out regular infantry for specialized infantry.