Best no. of Divisions for Armies?

[GapingLotus]

Hi there, forgive me if this is a stupid question / easy to find in manual (I got it second hand so no manual came with it and adobe acrobat reader is extremely slow on my pc).

I would like to know what the best number of divisions in an army is? I read somewhere it's best to keep your infantry in divisions of 3. What about tanks? eg. attacking Poland as Germany, would it be better to have all your tanks in one group or to seperate them into 1 division groups where you can use the higher skill of Mj. Generals?

Cheers

 

[Red Jacket]

Hi there, forgive me if this is a stupid question / easy to find in manual (I got it second hand so no manual came with it and adobe acrobat reader is extremely slow on my pc).

Greetings! No manual? No problem. Use the Hoi2Wiki found here.

I would like to know what the best number of divisions in an army is? I read somewhere it's best to keep your infantry in divisions of 3. What about tanks? eg. attacking Poland as Germany, would it be better to have all your tanks in one group or to seperate them into 1 division groups where you can use the higher skill of Mj. Generals?

Cheers

I use armies of 1, 3, and 6 units. I think this is works best for me, and I don't know if there is some optimal combination, rather what works best for you. So try it different ways. A lot depends on what country you play; with large country like SOV vs small country like CAN. Larger the country the more you want to combine divisions into larger armies; some of this just is for convenience and management, and the fact that you are likely to be involved in larger battles.

Reason I use armies of various sizes:
1 - allows Major Generals to quickly gain experience.
3 - when I have capable leaders above the Maj Gen rank. Led by Lt Gen, Gen, FM.
6 - HQ with General or FM leader and 5 INF or MOT. I always know where my HQ is.

There are always exceptions to this for me.

For tanks vs Poland, yes, single units to gain exp.

 

[hito1]

When not playing major countries or earlier in the game (when there is less units), I like to make armies of 2 and 1, led by lt. and maj. generals, followed by a HQ or an army of 3 led by a general. It's a micromanagement hell, but you get to train your generals better.

 

[Valorious]

I tend to use one unit per general...even my field marshals only control one unit. This takes a lot more micromanagement, but it allows me more flexibility on the battlefield. I was just playing the Soviets, where it was not unusual in bottleneck fights for me to have 40+ divisions in multiple provinces trying to breakthrough a German province of 20-30 divisions. I would start attacking with 24 divisions (field marshal controlling an HQ), and every 8 hours or so would freeze the game and retreat out divisions that had zero org. I would replace those with fresh divisions, so that I always had 24 divisions attacking. Because each general only control one divisions, this was very easy for me to do. Because the Soviets had such morale, if you had enough divisions, you can cycle this for a long time.

 

[Red Jacket]

Skil: I perhaps am missing the advantage you get by using all 1s. Why couldn't you do the same with 3 division armies instead of all 1s? Wouldn't that be 1/3 the amount of work and management?

 

[unmerged(103362)]

Most of my armies consist of 3 divisions. The perfect amount IMO. Don't forget to group your units together though (infantry with infantry, armored with armored, etc.). I used to have armies with more divisions when I first started and I didn't have much success with that. And I didn't like the chaos when you have the 1 army/1 division set-up, with 100+ armies it tends to get a bit hectic on the battlefield.

 

[Valorious]

Skil: I perhaps am missing the advantage you get by using all 1s. Why couldn't you do the same with 3 division armies instead of all 1s? Wouldn't that be 1/3 the amount of work and management?

Because if only one of the division in that 3 division formation had to retreat (at zero org), I would end up retreating all 3 when 2 of the divisions could still be fighting. By the way this is voluntary retreat. In a usuall fight, the stack would not retreat unitl the avg org was less than 5%. That means many divisions would be taking strength damage because their org had been a zero for a while. By retreating a division when its org reach zero, it doesnt continue fighting and taking strength damage.

 

[unmerged(47103)]

A few thoughts:

- I use combined arms when using armoured i.e. an armoured with a mot, or 2 arms with mot. You get the CA bonuses with these.

- the 'cycling', as you described it, can be useful, but it's also a factor of your org/morale. For example, with the Germans having massive org, you'll wear down your opponent before it becomes a factor. For the Soviets, the 'org cycling' is more attractive.

- you also maximise effect by having the most units commanded by the best possible commanders. High skills and good traits provide the greatest effect when applied to the maximum number of divs possible. Put it this way - would you prefer 12 divs under a 5 skill with off/trickster or just 1? If you've a FM with those traits, why not get them applied to the maximum number of divs? Remember, the skill/traits only get applied to those under that commander's DIRECT command.

- yes, lower ranks gain skill more quickly, but it makes no sense to me to use them until the higher ranks with the same skill/traits already have their maximum number of divs under their command. Otherwise you are sacrificing available bonuses NOW in order to train other commanders to a level the higher ranked/skilled commander already has.

- If, on the other hand, you have a large number of lower ranked commanders with better skill/trait advantages than an available higher rank, then it makes sense to give the higher rank a single div but use their rank's C&C capacity to use a bunch of Maj Gens to attack. This is usually more relevant to a country like the USSR, where you have a lot of divs but many of your 'better' commanders are initially low rank.

- traits can matter as much - sometimes even more - than skill. 'Off' gives +10% attacking, 'Def' +10% defending. 'Panzer Leader' gives +10% off/def if commanding armour/mech. 'Commando' gives +10% when commanding mtn/marines/airborn. 'Trickster' increases the chance of a 'combat event', so it's not a bad idea to try to have one of them somewhere in the mix, too.

- ALWAYS have an HQ around - they improve ESE (thus combat) and increase your 'combat event' during ALL combat, attacking OR defending.

- NEVER use an HQ as a combat div. (UNLESS you need them to command a battle i.e. you don't have a sufficiently high ranking commander involved in the attack, in which case I use them as 'support attack'....but this should be rare if you're managing your forces properly). Put high-ranking but 'poor' commanders in charge of them, and leave them as a single div corp. They are the ideal place to put 'Old Guard + def or log wizard' generals. I even promote manually Lt Gens with these traits just to command HQs!

Well, a few thoughts to toss into the mix......

 

[unmerged(100367)]

Carlito Gambino

Don't forget to group your units together though (infantry with infantry, armored with armored, etc.).

Only if you don't mind your faster units being slowed down. i.e. if you're trying to make rapid encirclements without fear of significant counter attacks, I wouldn't bother.

Steeltrap

- NEVER use an HQ as a combat div. (UNLESS you need them to command a battle i.e. you don't have a sufficiently high ranking commander involved in the attack, in which case I use them as 'support attack'....but this should be rare if you're managing your forces properly). Put high-ranking but 'poor' commanders in charge of them, and leave them as a single div corp. They are the ideal place to put 'Old Guard + def or log wizard' generals. I even promote manually Lt Gens with these traits just to command HQs!

I have heard it said that individual HQ's on their own become a vulnerable target to enemy bombers so I now tend to group them with infantry divisions and use them in the attacks. I don't know if that's more for multi-player though...?

 

[chimney]

always group of 3
as for HQ, i like to give them 2 INF divisions for combined arm bonus and being sure they wont arrive in a province before the tanks

 

[unmerged(104110)]

As for HQ's being bombed in my experience the ai love destroying them if the are alone, although its not normally a problem for me in a GC because I make sure I have air superiority (at least locally to protect such troops) but in some of the short scenarios such as operation Husky or D-day if you play as the Germans you just try moving those HQ's singly and the will get blasted into oblivion by the Allied air forces (this comes from painful experience ).

 

[Ericus1]

always group of 3
as for HQ, i like to give them 2 INF divisions for combined arm bonus and being sure they wont arrive in a province before the tanks

HQ's are soft units, not hard. You wouldn't get the CA bonus from that formation.

 

[unmerged(47103)]

Re HQs:

Yes, the AI will attack them with aircraft. If German, you can put an AA bat with them and it won't slow them down. For other nations, I often put an engineer with them - it makes them faster and tougher. Aircraft aren't too much of a problem UNLESS you are moving. If you have no available fighters/interceptors, that might be a problem. If getting pasted, you can always 'strategic' move them, as that takes them off the map.

As for stopping them from getting somewhere before the rest of your troops, I simply move them well after the other units. To get the bonus from them they need only be in an adjacent province, so it's sometimes better - depending on the number of provinces bordering on others - for them to be behind the front line.

Otherwise, I stand by my original point. They have no real attack value and are expensive to repair, so why use them in combat? Also, why 'waste' a top commander by having them command a unit not designed for combat?

Lastly, I think it would be a considerable improvement if HQs were not able to capture territory on their own. It's stupid to think an HQ would be ahead the combat divisions advancing into enemy territory!

 

[chimney]

HQ's are soft units, not hard. You wouldn't get the CA bonus from that formation.

i didnt play in a long time, i was sure they were hard :wacko:
so group them with mechs

 

[Ericus1]

Re HQs:

Yes, the AI will attack them with aircraft. If German, you can put an AA bat with them and it won't slow them down. For other nations, I often put an engineer with them - it makes them faster and tougher. Aircraft aren't too much of a problem UNLESS you are moving. If you have no available fighters/interceptors, that might be a problem. If getting pasted, you can always 'strategic' move them, as that takes them off the map.

As for stopping them from getting somewhere before the rest of your troops, I simply move them well after the other units. To get the bonus from them they need only be in an adjacent province, so it's sometimes better - depending on the number of provinces bordering on others - for them to be behind the front line.

Otherwise, I stand by my original point. They have no real attack value and are expensive to repair, so why use them in combat? Also, why 'waste' a top commander by having them command a unit not designed for combat?

Lastly, I think it would be a considerable improvement if HQs were not able to capture territory on their own. It's stupid to think an HQ would be ahead the combat divisions advancing into enemy territory!

While all that is true, the counter arguement I would make is that it is easier to keep them alive AND useful on the front if you group them with other divisions.

I normally try to spread out my divisions as much as possible to train as many generals as possible at the same time, so my normal corps size is 3. Since they need to be commanded by at least a general I can easily stick the HQ in with one of my three inf corps. I use one of my good gens/FMs, who would be commanding the corps anyways, and make it four without going over my command limits, so I'm not really losing anything.

Being in the stack it isn't nearly as vulnerable to aircraft so I can move it along with the front line, maximing its usefulness, without worrying about being bombed to death. And it prevents the HQ from speed rushing ahead of the rest of the front line if I'm Germany and stupidly forget their HQ's move at 78% of the speed of light and don't stop it from advancing.

So I lose one infantry from my 18 division stacking limit from one direction during a battle, but gain a lot more, IMO.

 

[Pzt_Dragoon47]

Technically, you guys are talking about army corps, not armies, as this game is based at the strategic not tactical level, as an "army" at the strategic level would have 60,000 to 100,000 men, http://www.feldgrau.com/org.html, just nickpicking there. I usually place my army corps at a size of maybe 6 divisions, one being an HQ, for "good" commanders that need training, ie high skill Lt. Generals who need more than 3 divisions to command, with more divisions under their command I can use them to spearhead offensives against gaps in the enemy line and get them valuable experience from leading attacks rather than just participating. This gives me enough experience for those leaders that I can promote them quickly and get to work on the leaders with less skill, whom I give army corps of 3 until I can get them promoted to a general, panzer leaders get 2 armored and 1 mot. or mech. division most of the time.
Actual army sizes may vary in relation to the size of the entire land force. The Romanian third and fourth armies and the German Sixth armies can make good examples of this.
Romanian Armies:
3rd Army organization

1st Army Corps
7th Infantry Division
11th Infantry Division

2nd Army Corps
9th Infantry Division
14th Infantry Division

4th Army Corps
13th Infantry Division
1st Cavalry Division
"Colonel Voicu" Detachment (since 11 November)*

5th Army Corps
5th Infantry Division
6th Infantry Division

3rd Army reserve
15th Infantry Division
7th Cavalry Division

Heavy artillery
2nd Heavy Artillery Regiment
4th Heavy Artillery Regiment
5th Heavy Artillery Regiment
8th Heavy Artillery Regiment
41st independent motorized Heavy Artillery Battalion

*) "Colonel Voicu" Detachment
12th Infantry Regiment
13th Light Infantry Battalion
611th Panzerjaeger Battalion (German)
54th Pioneer Battalion
3rd Artillery Battalion (of 41st Artillery Regiment - 13th Infantry Division)
1st Artillery Battalion (of 4th Heavy Artillery Regiment)

4th Army organization

6th Army Corps
1st Infantry Division
2nd Infantry Division
18th Infantry Division
20th Infantry Divsion
1st Heavy Artillery Regiment
47th Heavy Artillery Battalion
in reserve:
6th Cavalry Regiment (5th Cavalry Division)
27th Pioneers Battalion

7th Army Corps
4th Infantry Division
5th Cavary Division
8th Cavalry Division
7th Heavy Artillery Regiment
in reserve:
57th Reconnaissance Group
57th Pioneers Battalion

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=53143

That places the Third Army at around 10 divisions and the Fourth Army at around 7 divisions. The Third was mostly put in corps of 2 divisions while the Fourth had corps of 4 and 3. The German Sixth Army had 250,000 men, which in HOI would come out to around 25 divisions, as they had a much larger land-based military overall, they could form much larger army formations without losing combat effectiveness. I can get a makeup of the Sixth Army as I have the Romanian armies above if it's required and you want to see how they organized their corps into army groups.
Overall, the choice on how to organize your military force is up to the amount of men and competent commanders available, and your personal choices on how you want them organized, so there is my worthless two cents.

 

[unmerged(47103)]

I usually place my army corps at a size of maybe 6 divisions, one being an HQ, for "good" commanders that need training, ie high skill Lt. Generals who need more than 3 divisions to command, with more divisions under their command I can use them to spearhead offensives against gaps in the enemy line and get them valuable experience from leading attacks rather than just participating. This gives me enough experience for those leaders that I can promote them quickly and get to work on the leaders with less skill, whom I give army corps of 3 until I can get them promoted to a general, panzer leaders get 2 armored and 1 mot. or mech. division most of the time.

A few comments:

The HQ bonus ONLY applies to the C&C limit within a battle, NOT within an individual corp. That means a Lt Gen can only DIRECTLY control 3 divs, but can control a battle from their province using up to 6 divs.

A Lt Gen can only DIRECTLY command 3 divs without other divs taking C&C penalties, which are very high (I can't remember the number). If you mean you have 5 divs + HQ all under DIRECT command of a Lt Gen (i.e. all in a corp with the Lt Gen as commander) then....
1. the HQ will not provide its HQ bonuses, as it only does so when under the command of a Gen or FM, and
2. 3 of the divs will fight at a large penalty.

Irrespective of who is displayed as the commander of a battle, the traits of commanders are only applied to those divs within that commander's corp. So, even with a Lt Gen commander who is highly skilled with excellent traits 'in charge' of a battle, his skill/traits will only be applied to the divs in his corp, UP TO his allowable limit.

ALL commanders in a battle gain experience. The 'OVER-ALL' commander (i.e. the one whose rank is used to determine C&C limits) does not gain experience any more quickly than any other. The rate of gain in experience is a function of existing skill and rank - the higher each value, the slower the rate of gain - and the 'old guard' trait further reduces the rate of experience gain. The other factor is the length of the battle - a battle lasting a few hours won't gain you much, if anything (I think there is a minimum duration required, but can't remember/be sure).

Promoting commanders manually costs you 1 skill level. Leaving it on 'auto-promote' will promote them based on the size of your forces (and possibly historical time-line too, but I'm not sure of that). For that reason I leave it on auto-promote, but each to their own.

Cheers

 

[Pzt_Dragoon47]

huh? Didn't know that, they got the job done at least, I thought that the HQ's also double the amount of divisions a Lt. General can use in a battle as long as the HQ is in direct combat? That explains why my last Offensive into the Caucasus failed at least, the rest of my comments still stand however, and the rate of experience gain is also by historical date yes, it is in their db/leader file.

If you have a very skilled general with many traits, is there a chance that it might be better to place 18 divisions under him with an HQ than have many Lt. Generals on the same line? I've always wondered if the stacking penalty meant anything if it's worth it for the traits of the general, and what is the stacking penalty exactly ?

 

[unmerged(47103)]

Ah, no.... the penalty is -75% for each div over the command limit. :rofl:

Check it here - all is explained:

Combat Efficiency Modifiers

Note, also, that having a commander with more units in his formation than his rank allows means that NO unit in his formation gets ANY benefit from either skill or traits.....

I made a comment in another thread that explains what I consider the '2 rules' of Command and Control - if I can find it I'll add it.

Cheers

 

[Pzt_Dragoon47]

I know, I said that lol, that's why my last offensive failed, I sent 3 Lt. Generals with 6 divisions each and an HQ and I got destroyed, not to mention I was using infantry and armor in the mountains , and I doubt a tank can go vertical lol.
The stacking penalty I was talking about was the one where you get -15% combat efficiency for having too many people under a single general, even if they are within the command limit.