Beginner's Guide to Unit Types & Division Design

[GAGA Extrem]

Slight update to the first post to mention that:
(1) Dig-in does boost ALL stats on defence (not just DEF)
(2) The armor/pierce value of a division is mostly depending on the best unit (so HARM/H-TD are an excellent way to boost outdated equipment)
(3) SP-ART now costs quite a bit more, which actually gives M-R-ART a reason to exist (it is fantastic for Motorized divisions or as a "soft" attachment to armored divisions (and updated Motorized division template to reflect this)
(4) Added "Heavy Infantry" division template (which I actually found quite good after some testing)

 

[tranqi]

great guide and thanks for collecting all that info.
another question on division size though:
Wouldnt it be nice to have at least 5 divisons with the width of 40 or more for volunteers purposes?

 

[thexmassteam]

Wouldnt it be nice to have at least 5 divisons with the width of 40 or more for volunteers purposes?

If you plan to play only with 20 width div. yes. But it may be XP costly to create those div. only for volunteers. You use volunteers mostly early game, when you don't have so much spare XP. And 40 width div. can be much more useful than only for volunteers, so best if you plan it ahead for that purpose but also for own uses.

 

[P3D]

Slight update to the first post to mention that:
...
(2) The armor/pierce value of a division is mostly depending on the best unit (so HARM/H-TD are an excellent way to boost outdated equipment)...

H-TD is the cheapest option (cheaper than AT or M-TD) to get piercing into the 70+ range, so expect the next patch to nerf them similar to SpArt.

 

[xclux]

Awesome Guide!, thanks for it

 

[Sir Garnet]

H-TD is the cheapest option (cheaper than AT or M-TD) to get piercing into the 70+ range, so expect the next patch to nerf them similar to SpArt.

A change is good as long as it is a move toward alignment with intended historically reasonable relative roles and cost-effectiveness across the various parameters of performance. in different situations. "Nerf" is too pejorative in its connotations for such a change.

 

[TeutonicSorcery]

What would be everyone's opinion on switching out Support ART/AT/AA for a Field Hospital and/or a Signals Company? Especially if you're playing a country where manpower is an issue.

 

[Brawler]

Everyone says H-TD is the cheapest option yet Heavy SP Anti-Air is actually cheaper. In fact, it is so cheap that you can have equal amount of factories dedicated to a line of infantry equipment and a line of H-AA and produce enough equipment to outfit 4 infantry battalions and 1 H-AA battalion in the same time. This seems like a nice cheap (although I haven't yet field tested it just discovered other night), manpower conservative division (4xINF, 1H-AA) with some really good armor that needs AT to pierce.

The stats aren't so bad either, for example the 1938 tech upgraded division below:

Manpower 4500
Organization 48
HP 100.6
SA 31.9
HA 8
DEF 98.8
Supply Use 0.38
Armor 19.8
Piercing 14.9
Hardness 14%

(Note this is just for sitting on the border while your REAL army force goes in and cleans up. They're just there to hold the line.)

This just improves with later years to counter any increase in piercing your enemy obtains from technology so they must always have AT in their division setup or hit 50% armor penalty (note: i play single player only )

Alternatively you can also use Light SP-AA since it gets you enough armor that can't be pierced without AT until more years into the game. When you get mediums they have nearly same stats as heavy AA but cheaper to produce in IC and resources (also less time spent researching a different tree).

 

[Secret Master]

Everyone says H-TD is the cheapest option yet Heavy SP Anti-Air is actually cheaper.

It is cheaper, but it also does not provide nearly as much piercing or armor as Heavy TDs per production point spent. Why bother adding heavy SP-AA to an infantry division if its easy to pierce?

Look at the stats using initial heavy armor:

Even at the same production cost, the heavy SP-AA has lower armor and piercing. Sure, it will probably murder incoming bombers, but I can do that with regular AA.

The numbers look even worse at 1941 techs:

The piercing and armor values are atrocious for heavy SP-AA at comparable costs.

You get more hardness per production point spent, and SP-AA has lower width per battalion, but if you are worried about armor or piercing, SP-AA is just not a cost efficient way to go about it.

 

[Brawler]

It is cheaper, but it also does not provide nearly as much piercing or armor as Heavy TDs per production point spent.

Hi there, thanks for pointing that out. It was something I missed initially and armor being a binary value, you either have enough or you don't it wasn't something I had fully considered while playing around with my division setups. I will definitely make some adjustments in my ongoing effort to find the most IC efficient divisions for industry and manpower starved minor nations.

 

[Secret Master]

Hi there, thanks for pointing that out. It was something I missed initially and armor being a binary value, you either have enough or you don't it wasn't something I had fully considered while playing around with my division setups. I will definitely make some adjustments in my ongoing effort to find the most IC efficient divisions for industry and manpower starved minor nations.

You might consider that IC starved nations should use AA in their infantry divisions to pierce enemy light armor.

 

[Starisc]

Not sure if I am allowed to necro this thread, but it's another patch and so far this has been my go-to thread for division composition for all past patches thanks to @GAGA Extrem and a few other very active theory-crafters.

Anyway, how are things after the 20% SA artillery nerf? Is the good ol king "7INF 2ART" finally dead and buried? (mind, I don't play MP so I might not be up to date on the latest meta )
Do the changes to SP-Art make a difference for mobile and armor divisions?

 

[Trifler]

Not sure if I am allowed to necro this thread, but it's another patch and so far this has been my go-to thread for division composition for all past patches thanks to @GAGA Extrem and a few other very active theory-crafters.

Anyway, how are things after the 20% SA artillery nerf? Is the good ol king "7INF 2ART" finally dead and buried? (mind, I don't play MP so I might not be up to date on the latest meta )
Do the changes to SP-Art make a difference for mobile and armor divisions?

I thought foot artillery needed it far more than self-propelled.

 

[Pompan]

What does the M in M-R-ART stand for? Motorised...? Rocket-Artillery?

 

[Sir Garnet]

M is usually Medium
but MRKT or MRART would be motorized rocket artillery, yes. Expensive in production but can keep pace with LT and Mot and can be researched and built early on to give the early fast divisions more firepower than the commonly attached SART

 

[Hatethese]

The 10 inf 2 art is 22 width with the mass assault tree.Is that how it should be?

 

[GAGA Extrem]

Yes, because when you use an Offensive Doctrine field marshal, it get's reduced down to ~20 width.

 

[Hatethese]

I dont think I have one.

 

[aprogressivist]

Security Division:
5xCAV [+MP]
Partisan supression unit

If you're going to add MP, isn't it better to go for 10 CAV or more, since the MP adds a % increase?

 

[Stolen Rutters]

If you're going to add MP, isn't it better to go for 10 CAV or more, since the MP adds a % increase?

Ooh, good idea.

From my 2 weeks experience with Italy, it seems like many states in Africa don't need more than one of my early 5CAV units with MP added. I am still using much of my initial army to hold land, but I am building up dedicated suppression forces (my CAV is 5 units now, but I am finally building army experience so I can finally go bigger with all my templates). Just discovered template copies, too, so I might do both. My plan: Remote suppression units will be smaller, France garrisons will be bigger.