Best Armoured Div build?

[Wraith11B]

Yes, good luck doing 6 doctrines just for your spearheads which aren't even 1/10 of your total forces and riding your blitzkrieg at -2/3 penalty through rivers...

Just wondering, Delra, but to what specific doctrines are you referring?

(this is one of those times when I wish the wiki had photo captures of the specific research pages so that I could compare properly what's in my head to respond to what people are posting!)

 

[harezmi]

i didn`t really get an answer to my question but let`s try one more time
with the superior firepower doctrine researched before danzig or war in 1939 i set most of my units as:

armor 2xARM+3xSPArt (50% softness)
regular 2xINF+3xArt

this way i can build more armor divisions with less combat width and i can attack with more divisions.

i understand the advantages of other designs but my question is if there is any major disadvantage for my armor unit composition?

thanks

 

[Secret Master]

i didn`t really get an answer to my question but let`s try one more time
with the superior firepower doctrine researched before danzig or war in 1939 i set most of my units as:

armor 2xARM+3xSPArt (50% softness)
regular 2xINF+3xArt

this way i can build more armor divisions with less combat width and i can attack with more divisions.

i understand the advantages of other designs but my question is if there is any major disadvantage for my armor unit composition?

thanks

Fuel and IC cost would seem to be it's major disadvantages, but I don't see it being a super big problem. If you are bothering to research superior firepower (the temptation is always there, even if you don't ever use a single MOT/MECH), then loading up on extra SPART is not a bad choice.

Terrain might be an issue, but I'm guessing that with that build, you want the ARM/SPART to breakthrough on open ground where they can move reasonably fast anyway.

The INF/ARTY is fine, too, though it starts getting pricey in terms of IC at a certain point (but it is very manpower efficient if, as I think, you are Germany; that might be a consideration for you to keep in mind).

But let me clarify: you only have SF registered. No FtM? If not, that MIGHT change the answer a we bit, depending on the current state of SF and the toughness/defensiveness bug.

 

[delra]

The one doctrine I feel like saving on is the SpArt doctrine. At best case scenario - how many of those are you going to have? 15? 20 out of 800 brigades you train? Is it worth researching it all just to have some fancy artillery on wheels with your tanks while it can be replaced without much effort by Mot, AC or even Eng? Same goes for Mech/Mot, why not skip them altogether and go with fast Arm tech set (lagging armor to sacrifice defensiveness for speed), combine with Engs and use those as breakthrough and exploits? Hell, you can even go with LArm staying inside the doctrine, if anything can buzz behind enemy line at speed of light with CA bonuses, that'd be those. Do you need that crappy event that reduces your attack value and frontage on defence all that much? How about Guerilla or Delay instead?

1944 Arm can go at 8kph, that's coincidentally also Eng speed and always less than AC speed - even if you tech their armor, not just gun like most people do. Eng morale upgrades with my marines, mountaineers and paratroopers (what major doesn't train those?). AC morale/organization upgrades with my tanks. AC has +2 more Toughness than SpArt and only like 1 point less of SA, comparing 1943 AC to 1942 SpArt. AC techs are difficulty "1" and on 3 year cycle, compare the time it takes to tech them.

Swapping one Arm for Mot means losing 5 points of HA on the one unit that enemy tanks are supposed to fear. It also might mean losing 1kph speed provided you went with a really fast Arm build (1938 Armor in 1944 techs of everything else, feel free to correct me though). IC can't be motivation here - because that's really one thing you have too much of in this game (if not, disregard stupid forum tips and make 1-3 runs in 1936-1937 like you're meant to). If you're that concerned about fuel - why are you using SpArt then instead of 4x cheaper AC or Eng? Supply usage? AC and Eng have half of SpArt's. Here's something to blow your mind, Eng helps on air defence too so next time there's CAS above your tanks, you might wonder why you are paying extra for an inferior brigade. ;-)

The only reason to go with Arm+Mot+SpArt+Whatever is role-playing. But in that case don't call it "best", it didn't even stand next to best...

 

[QuinnDexter]

I'm not sure if its the "best" but I tend to go 2xLarm, 1 mot, and 1 eng. I go that route because it tends to help keep tech levels up across different units. I tried to get med tank armor up with the motherland but I feel it saps away too much from other techs. It also bogs down my production and ultimately causes me to go back and update my light armor tech for my motorized/mech units. I tend to rely on my tactical and naval air to cover for armor and naval units at least early on till 41ish...

 

[knul]

The only reason to go with Arm+Mot+SpArt+Whatever is role-playing. But in that case don't call it "best", it didn't even stand next to best...

Am I such a whiny bitch or is it a shame that using Armor in a WW2 is not a good option? I mean, I'm all for alt-history alternative division builds, but having an historical build being quite suboptimal just sounds wrong to me.

 

[Cybvep]

Sorry, but as Germany, leadership is the last thing you will lack. Researching another doctrine path is hardly a problem. Armoured forces require high LP and IC cost in general.

In regard to rivers - sure, 3xARM+1xENG is better, but you will try not to blitz through rivers, anyway. There are other units which will do for much lower logistical cost and with similar BWA per MP effectiveness, e.g. six 2xINF+2xENG (or even better - 2xMAR+2xENG). If you really want to use 3xARM+1xENG for that purpose, then you can change the composition of your divs if it's needed, while you cannot change 3xARM+1xENG to 2xARM+1xMOT+1xSPART if you don't have MOTs. 2xARM+1xMOT+1xSPART is either more cost-effective or at least equal to 3xARM+1xENG in typical situations.

Am I such a whiny bitch or is it a shame that using Armor in a WW2 is not a good option? I mean, I'm all for alt-history alternative division builds, but having an historical build being quite suboptimal just sounds wrong to me.

HOI3 is poorly balanced in some cases. However, 2xARM+1xMOT+1xSPART is good.

 

[Traks]

SP-Art rocks the socks, 2Arm+3Spart can chew 5 infantry divisions in 24 hours.
It is much less effective against hard targets (tanks), but that's where you use planes/TD resources.

 

[Wraith11B]

The one doctrine I feel like saving on is the SpArt doctrine. At best case scenario - how many of those are you going to have? 15? 20 out of 800 brigades you train?

I dunno... I generally have one for each of my Armored divisions as well as one in each of my infantry (mot) divisions (so, 24+). Also, assault concentration helps all artillery... elastic defense helps in tactical withdrawal chances... so really I see no need to skimp on any of it.

 

[Secret Master]

Am I such a whiny bitch or is it a shame that using Armor in a WW2 is not a good option? I mean, I'm all for alt-history alternative division builds, but having an historical build being quite suboptimal just sounds wrong to me.

You're not a whiny bitch. I will quote myself earlier in the thread.

What's "best" is a subjective parameter when applied to armor. You should instead ask "Would an armored unit help in the situation I am experiencing?"

HOI3 does some weird things that affect balance. You can get the CA bonus in so many weird ways that it confuses the underlying issues. Add to that players that have been playing through 3 different expansions, including one that had a bug with defensiveness and toughness (I'm looking at you, SF!), and you end up with a discussion like the one we are having.

Again, the discussion should never be "Formation X the best evar!!!! Only noobs use it!!! WHARGHARGABLL!!" HOI3 is a smarter game than that. A formation might work great against France, and under perform against the Soviets. A production/practicals strategy might work great as Germany, but suck as France (just ask me about motorizing/mechanizing the French Army in time for war in 39...). And what muddles this even further is that not everyone has the same ARM. Your ARM might have all upgrades, while Delra's ARM is missing armor. Someone else might save research on reliability and just deal with reduced toughness. Two players, each with a 2xARM, 2xSPART build might have different stats at the same tech levels. It's even worse with TDs and MECH because so many upgrades affect those units. (Did you know that heavy armor applies to TDs? I didn't know for a long time, and it changed the way I view that unit and it's potential advantages and disadvantages.)

And that does not even begin to tackle the differences between rocket artillery and tube artillery. You can get into another whole weird area just discussing those pro's and con's. (Although, I will express my preference for tube artillery right now )

This does not mean every build is equal. But it does mean that if someone says "Build X is great because of high SA" and if someone else says "No, it sucks because of high supply and fuel consumption," they may both be right. Using the build may depend on what you are shopping for in a formation at that moment.

 

[Cybvep]

Someone else might save research on reliability and just deal with reduced toughness

This rarely happens. In most cases all majors end up with the same armour techs because of historical year penalties and lack of incentive for specialisation. Engine techs may be an exception, though.

 

[Traks]

This rarely happens. In most cases all majors end up with the same armour techs because of historical year penalties and lack of incentive for specialisation. Engine techs may be an exception, though.

As Germany I usually go for continuous tank research from 1940 onwards, same for inf.
Others techs I keep updated, and sometimes I may go for Nightvision tech ahead of time.

 

[Secret Master]

This rarely happens. In most cases all majors end up with the same armour techs because of historical year penalties and lack of incentive for specialisation. Engine techs may be an exception, though.

As Germany I usually go for continuous tank research from 1940 onwards, same for inf.
Others techs I keep updated, and sometimes I may go for Nightvision tech ahead of time.

But we'll hear people dropping armor research to keep speed, or research engines and guns head of time for specific purposes. It's really quite variable.

I love researching nightvision ahead of time (I can sometimes get it early enough to impact even the beginning of the war), but since it doesn't apply to anything other than INF and special forces, it isn't always a priority. After all, your tanks, ships, planes, artillery, and militia can't use it for some odd reason.

 

[Buckley]

My typical Armored Corps at the start of the war (1939) is five Divisions:

one LARMx3/AC
two ARMx2/MOT/SPA
two MOTx2/TDx2

... the Medium Armor Divisions are used for break-through (unless my INFx2/ARTx2 Divisions can accomplish it unassisted) and for dealing with tough resistance, the Light Armor is for exploitation and pinning attacks on nearby defenders that I want immobilized, and the Motorized are for raising Hell in the enemy's rear areas.

I try to pair them each with a Motorized Corps:

five MOTx2/TDx2

This actually seems to be a historically flavorful build for an armored corps. IMHO spamming Motx2/ TDx2 just because of a the numbers behind the game seems a bit spammy/ gamey to me. But that's just me, I like a lot of flavor in the game, even if it's an irrational use of resources at times.

But I've learned a lot viewing your analysis of Motx2 TDx2 and can totally see that being a part of an armored corps.

My fav build is a Armx2/Mot/SPArt. I just love the punch and flavor of this build, but I think I'll spice that up at corps level with some Mot/TD divisions.

Thanks.

B

 

[blue emu]

My fav build is a Armx2/Mot/SPArt. I just love the punch and flavor of this build, but I think I'll spice that up at corps level with some Mot/TD divisions.

I find that adding one L-ARMx3/AC Division per Panzer Corps is also very useful.

Naturally, it has drawbacks... extra L-ARM Techs that you must research if you don't want the unit to slowly become obsolete, and low practicals since you're only building one of them per Panzer Corps.

On the other hand, it adds a lot of flexibility, having one unit per Panzer Corps that's fairly hard and nearly 50% faster than the rest. I use it for the initial exploitation of the breakthrough, and for launching pinning attacks on a nearby enemy stack that has the potential to interfere with my exploitation operations. Its goal is simply to hold the enemy stack locked in combat while the rest of the Corps drives through the breach and starts spreading out behind my opponent's lines.

Since the L-ARM Division is so much faster than the rest of the Corps, it's always the first to arrive on the spot if I'm using the Panzer Corps as reaction forces (eg: to counter an enemy landing), so it can immediately start doing its job (pinning the most threatening enemy stack) as soon as it arrives, which covers the arrival of the rest of the Corps.

I typically assign my very best or most promising Panzer Leaders (Rommel, Manstein, Guderian, von Randow) to these Light Armor Divisions. That sounds a bit odd, since I would get more battlefield effect by assigning them to a Medium Panzer Division... but it really helps the L-ARM Division do its job, and it also gives those commanders much more Experience, since those low-odds pinning attacks start very early in the engagement, and usually last until all my other units are in position. I've had von Randow (a PL/LW) advance from skill-2 up to skill-8 by 1942.

 

[Thurak]

I find that adding one L-ARMx3/AC Division per Panzer Corps is also very useful.

I often start with some 2*LArm+AC for the speed (and practical gain) and add a mech brigade later when available. Speed is great, and as mech is a very good brigade the shortcomings of LArm are reduced. It's a great fast unit with a nice amount of Soft attack - just be aware of *true* tanks .

 

[unmerged(181758)]

The OP's origional post:

Whats the best 4 brigade armoured div?

I've always gone with ARM/MOT/MOT/SPART - but on another thread I was reading that this is considered to be a poor build.

What do people generally use?

Note that it is a poor build in game even though it is kind of historical since it just achieves the Combined Arms Bonus if the MOT are at 87% Softness because it is about the Softest CA build you can make, although I much prefer it to the more ridiculous non-historical builds of others.

2ARM/1MOT/1SPART might work better

Period.

i am now reassured about my default ARM/MOT/MOT/SPART build. I may try to go for the 5 brigade tech so as to add an ENG unit to my armoured divs - but would this slow them down?

huh?

Lool. Based on what? ;-)

Based on lots of other people using it. You're the only person slating it as far as I can see. Each to their own.

I've read the thread pretty well through and only count one bloke who builds the same, but suspects that 2x ARM/MOT/SP-ART might be better and another who supports your build because it's an historical build but... who didn't advance any reason why it would be good. (Another merely pointed out that because your 1x ARM build isn't hard enough it should suffer less damage from hard targeting CAS bombers, which is kind of a back hander but that's not really a good reason to build it.)

2xARM+1xMOT+1xSPART is a very powerful division. It is fast, has high BWA, enjoys a bonus against soft targets (i.e. the ones with >50% softness) and has very good toughness. It's also very efficient MP-wise and is not even gamey or stupid as some of possible CA divs in HOI3 are. Its logistical requirements are high, but still not as high as nonsensical 3xARM+1xENG. Unfortunately, another realistic div composition - 1xARM+2xMOT+1xSPART - doesn't work so well in Vanilla.

This is on the money.

Personally I like to add a TD to 2x ARM/MECH/SP-ART as my best Armoued Division build and if I have to attack across a River I'll try to use something else or I'll add an Engineer Traited Divisional and Corps General for the duration of just that River assault.

While 1x ARM/2x MOT/1x SP-ART does just get the CA bonus the optimum Softness range of Armoured Divisions is between 33% and 50% because of the hidden Armour_On_Soft bonus which substantially increases damage against Soft targets and really dis-organises them heavily. Also the lower the Softness of the Division the harder the target it is which the majority of enemy units are going to be at a dis-advantage fighting against because they'll typically have much greater SA (Soft Attack points) than HA (Hard Attack points) to fire to try and do damage.

A 2x ARM division is more than likely to meet the optimum range of Softness.

 

[Lord Strange]

This calls for Blue Emu to do some full scale research!

 

[ltccone]

My panzerkorps are 4 panzer divisions (2xARM,1xMOT/MECH, 1xENG) and 1 motorized (later panzergrenadier) division (3xMOT/MECH, 1xTD). When 5 brigade divisions are available I add a SPART brigade to the panzer divisions and a TD brigade to the motorized/panzergrenadier divisons.

 

[Alex_brunius]

Since the L-ARM Division is so much faster than the rest of the Corps, it's always the first to arrive on the spot if I'm using the Panzer Corps as reaction forces (eg: to counter an enemy landing), so it can immediately start doing its job (pinning the most threatening enemy stack) as soon as it arrives, which covers the arrival of the rest of the Corps.

I prefer just strategically redeploying infantry in the path of the enemy in these situations. They move 20kph in level 10 infra and 10kph in level 5 which means they are absurdly fast in most of the coastlines worth defending. If the enemy tries to go around infantry is redeployed into the adjacent province they are moving to in a matter off hours.