Brigades

[unmerged(62241)]

[Whenever you build a brigade and claim a unit is better with the brigade than without you must think about what you could have built instead and what you could have researched instead.[/QUOTE]

I guess I will just be stubborn on this issue, but here is how I see it: you build 200 non-brigaded infantry divisions-I build 150 inf w/engineers and 50 subs or destroyers, or possibly an extra 15 CAS, or whatever. How are you better off than me? Perhaps if you can bring all 200 of your divisions to bear on all 150 of mine...So your army might be larger than mine, but I might have a more varied force that can affect the outcome in ways other than land combat.

 

[Neckkit]

I have found heavy armour to be another useless brigades. HA-I is useless already. I know HA-II and III is quite good but then after that you get no more upgrades as SPART does. It really beats the purpose to build brigades that is only good for a while and it's not as if there is no other alternative.

 

[_Curieus_]

Imho, there are moments where even plain infantry can profit from brigades.
If you are a small country on the list of "targets to be overrun" and you don't have enough manpower (for ex: NL) you don't have the MP to build many infantry. You can build ART brigades though (Add some AA brigades if you plan not to build provincial AA) and still keep enough MP to reinforce for a while.
Rules change under different situations...

IMHO the NL gets to little manpower considering that they had a 10 Milion population at the time, without any WW1 demographic damage. It would be realistic before the war, when animo for the army was low. But during the war much more men would have been called up. (If the country had survived long enough of course )

 

[unmerged(32688)]

I guess I will just be stubborn on this issue, but here is how I see it: you build 200 non-brigaded infantry divisions-I build 150 inf w/engineers and 50 subs or destroyers, or possibly an extra 15 CAS, or whatever. How are you better off than me? Perhaps if you can bring all 200 of your divisions to bear on all 150 of mine...So your army might be larger than mine, but I might have a more varied force that can affect the outcome in ways other than land combat.

For comparison, in the '39 scenario (just for example), and as Germany, all other things being equal (gearing bonuses and tech):
Just talking about land forces here, air is a whole different wrinkle. (You have to figure the other guy could make CAS or a navy too, so we have to compare apples to apples).

200 vanilla INF = 76,000 IC-Days ( 76 days x 5 IC = 380 x 200 divisions = 76,000)
[2,000 MP]

153 INF + 153 ENG = 75,765 IC-Days ( 76 days x 5 IC = 380 x 153 divisions = 58,140 ) + ( 36 x 3.2 = 115.2 x 153 brigades = 17,625.6 ) = 75,765
[2,019 MP]

So you could really only field 153, no room for anything else and probably lose vs. 200 vanilla.

I enjoy some number crunching, (but I'm sure blue emu or others could come in here and smoke me on that).
Too much and it gets to be work though.

Lots of people make units for fun and flavor, not for hard #s.
If it's more fun to make 153-E divisions, do that

 

[unmerged(62241)]

Okay, now that all of you have pounded the whole concept into me, I understand. I was thinking in terms of straight IC-not including days. I'm dense more often than I would like. I'm still going to us engineers, though. Reminds me of Jared Diamond's discussion how cultures can hang onto tech or ideas than fly directly in the face of common sense...like the qwerty keyboard, or the Viking colony in Greenland insisting on cattle instead of fish or seals...and then slowly dying out...

 

[blue emu]

Here is a quick (& dirty) example -
IV Cav, with Sup Fire, Grand Battle Plan, Mass Assault, Trench Warfare - quite common / achievable early on.

With basic Armoured Car (allowing for less soft, more Tough, more Defence & org bonus) This is more than 30% better @ resiting than with out. It is also more than 30% better vs soft, and 66% better vs hard. Cost is 3.6 TC vs 3.0 and 11 MP vs 9. Net positive on all fronts by my count.

Heh-Heh... I love your example. Obviously, you didn't actually do the math.

Let's take a quick look, shall we? I will use YOUR example (Cavalry-IV, with or without Basic-AC).

First a few definitions of terms: Battle Winning Ability can be calculated from the force's ability to inflict damage on the enemy (itself dependant on numbers and on HA/SA firepower vs enemy Softness) multiplied by the force's ability to sustain damage and still keep fighting (itself dependant on numbers and average unit ORG).

Effective Firepower can be calculated by multiplying the SA x enemy Softness and then adding the HA x enemy Hardness. This will give the unit's ability to inflict damage on a target of the stated Softness/Hardness.

Since we are trying to decide whether the units are better off brigaded or un-brigaded, we will skirmish them against each other, using three different comparison-stacks... one of constant-Manpower, one of constant-IC-days, and one of constant-TC-load.

Cost/Time discounts for Hawk and Free Market will be ignored, since they affect both sides equally and will not change the ratios or results at all. There are no Cost discounts for Cavalry or Armored Cars in the Land Doctrines considered. Note that any slider-move towards Standing Army will benefit ONLY the un-brigaded force, since it raises the average unit ORG and thus reduces the proportionate effect of the AC's +5 bonus ORG. I will assume a centered Standing Army slider.

The units under consideration:

Basic Armored Car : 3 IC x 60 days = 180 IC-days
+5 ORG, -5 Softness,
+2 SA, +1 T, +1 D
+2 MP, +0.4 Supply, +0.16 Oil

Cav-IV : 9 IC x 95 days, 855 IC-days
ORG 56, 9 MP, 95 Softness
SA: 12, HA: 2, T: 14, D: 14
Supply: 1.5, Oil: 1.5, TC: 3

Cav-IV/AC: 1035 IC-days total
ORG 61, 11 MP, 90 Softness
SA: 14, HA: 2, T: 15, D: 15
SC: 1.9, OC: 1.66, TC: 3.56

Now the Battle Winning Ability calculations:

Constant Manpower: 11 Cav (99 MP) vs 9 Cav-AC (99 MP)

Cav: (11 units x ((0.9 Softness x 12 SA) + (0.1 Hardness x 2 HA)) x 11 units x 56 ORG) = 74,536 BWA
Cav-AC: (9 units x ((0.95 Softness x 14 SA) + (0.05 Hardness x 2 HA)) x 9 units x 61 ORG) = 66,209 BWA

The un-brigaded Cavalry beats the Cavalry-AC by 12.6% in Battle Winning Ability.

Constant IC-days: 6 Cav (5130 IC-days) vs 5 Cav-AC (5175 IC-days)

(Note that I've given the Cavalry-AC an extra 45 IC-days bonus)

Cav: (6 units x ((0.9 Softness x 12 SA) + (0.1 Hardness x 2 HA)) x 6 units x 56 ORG) = 22,176 BWA
Cav-AC: (5 units x ((0.95 Softness x 14 SA) + (0.05 Hardness x 2 HA)) x 5 units x 61 ORG) = 20,435 BWA

The un-brigaded Cavalry beats the Cavalry-AC by 8.5% in Battle Winning Ability... even after giving the Cavalry-AC a 45 IC-day advantage.

Constant TC-load: 13 Cav (39 TC) vs 11 Cav-AC (39.16 TC)

(Again, I've given the Cavalry-AC a small advantage in TC-limit)

Cav: (13 units x ((0.9 Softness x 12 SA) + (0.1 Hardness x 2 HA)) x 13 units x 56 ORG) = 104,104 BWA
Cav-AC: (11 units x ((0.95 Softness x 14 SA) + (0.05 Hardness x 2 HA)) x 11 units x 61 ORG) = 98,905 BWA

The un-brigaded Cavalry beats the Cavalry-AC by 5.3% in Battle Winning Ability... even after giving them a TC-limit advantage.

The brigaded Cavalry lose all three battles to the un-brigaded force.

Now... you may feel that this comparison isn't entirely fair, since I did not consider the extra +1 Toughness or +1 Defensiveness conferred by the AC brigades... so let's consider it now.

The extra Toughness and Defensiveness adds 7% to the unit's base Toughness or Defensiveness... but in the above examples, the brigaded units are facing more shots-per-hour-per-target than the un-brigaded force, since they are outnumbered. Since these are on-demand stats... only used one point at a time to block incoming hits... the extra Toughness or Defensiveness will only play a role if the unit that possesses it thereby avoids being dog-piled while it's opponent cannot avoid that fate.

Let's see if that's the case:

First battle (Constant-Manpower): The un-brigaded Cavalry faces 12.27 shots per hour per unit, and has a Defensiveness of 14. Extra Defensiveness would not affect the combat. The brigaded Cavalry faces 14.67 shots per hour per unit, and has a Defensiveness of 15. Only the brigaded Cavalry... not the un-brigaded Cavalry... is in danger of being dog-piled by random target selection fluctuations.

Second battle (Constant IC-days): The un-brigaded Cavalry faces 11.67 shots per hour per unit, and has a Defensiveness of 14. Extra Defensiveness would not affect the combat. The brigaded Cavalry faces 14.4 shots per hour per unit, and has a Defensiveness of 15. Again, only the brigaded Cavalry... not the un-brigaded Cavalry... is in danger of being dog-piled by random target selection fluctuations.

Third battle (Constant TC-load): The un-brigaded Cavalry faces 11.84 shots per hour per unit, and has a Defensiveness of 14. Extra Defensiveness would not affect the combat. The brigaded Cavalry faces 14.18 shots per hour per unit, and has a Defensiveness of 15. Only the brigaded Cavalry... not the un-brigaded Cavalry... is in danger of being dog-piled by random target selection fluctuations.

In all three battles, the result is the same... the extra Toughness and Defensiveness conferred by the AC brigade is not only too little to give any advantage... it's even too little to make the brigaded unit as safe from dog-piling as the un-brigaded unit already is.

The un-brigaded Cavalry wins hands down, by all four measures. I love your example...

 

[unmerged(32688)]

Brennan Tate just got the Blue Emu smackdown. :rofl:

 

[krieger11b]

Beneficial or not I just like having all my unit brigaded, call it flavor. Especially when I want certain Panzer/Mot/Mech units specialized as encircling units.

 

[blue emu]

Beneficial or not I just like having all my unit brigaded, call it flavor. Especially when I want certain Panzer/Mot/Mech units specialized as encircling units.

Agreed... for example:

One point that I haven't mentioned regarding the Engineers (which I called "junk", remember) is that when playing as Germany, I always build 18-21 of them to attach to several of my Infantry Corps.

Not because I consider them effective, or a good investment of Manpower, IC-days or TC... I don't. They are a waste of resources. By a purely mathematical calculation, they are, indeed, junk.

I do it for flavor... because I play these games to have fun, and for me, brigades add a fun role-playing element which is more important to me personally than a straight mathematical calculation.

When people on the Forum ask me questions regarding brigades, I assume that they want an objective answer... and not an answer that is dependant on my own personal role-playing preferences... so I give them the results of an objective mathematical calculation.

I am not required, though, to actually PLAY that way, in my own games. I can tell people how to optimize their forces... but I'm not required to actually follow my own advice.

 

[krieger11b]

The only brigade I really find useless are the heavy armor, especially the later ones. Not only are they a big use of IC, but the amount the slow you down is insane when you Super Heavy Armor. They are good for nothing other than defense, and if you are building for a defensive war, you are building to loose. Unless you enemy has limit manpower, it is how Napoleon put it, he something to the effect of "the only end result of a purely defensive war is to loose."

 

[blue emu]

The only brigade I really find useless are the heavy armor, especially the later ones.

Depends on what you mean by "useless". I think AT takes the prize for utter uselessness... especially in the early-to-mid war. Artillery is far better, unles your opponent has built more Armor than Infantry... in which case all you need to do is pull back a few provinces and then watch his TC implode.

 

[krieger11b]

Depends on what you mean by "useless". I think AT takes the prize for utter uselessness... especially in the early-to-mid war. Artillery is far better, unles your opponent has built more Armor than Infantry... in which case all you need to do is pull back a few provinces and then watch his TC implode.

LOL I like your last line

Anyways the my definition stems mostly from the point of being able to implement the brigades. In a huge place like the SU, getting something like super heavy armor the front is a pain. Unless your lines are totally stagnant usually by the time you strat deploy the SHA your lines have moved and you have to wait even longer to get them into action, after a certain point in your invasion if things are going well, you are never going get the SHA to see action and you not only wasted IC on them, but the unit you built to carry the things as well.

 

[unmerged(55467)]

I sometimes build some HARM as the USSR for fun... I love Soviet heavy tanks...

 

[krieger11b]

I sometimes build some HARM as the USSR for fun... I love Soviet heavy tanks...

Well if your having fun with them, then it's not a waste of IC. I just get aggravated trying to get them to the front.

 

[blue emu]

I sometimes build some HARM as the USSR for fun... I love Soviet heavy tanks...

Aside from mobile forces (Armor, Mechanized, Motorized) and Specialist Troops (Paratroops, Marines)... fun is the most valid and most common reason for building and using brigades. Extremely narrow fronts or low Leader command limits are another valid reason... but far less common.

 

[unmerged(58571)]

In my last German campaign with my more manpower-friendly brigades I had a little too much fun :wacko: I'm so used to manpower being the only constraint I simply wasn't paying attention to my TC - until it turned red on the first day of the war against the USSR, before I had even captured any provinces. Still, I had several hundred manpower spare.

 

[unmerged(58898)]

surely if you have a front to defend 4 infantry with eng (+5 defence i think ) is better than 5 vanilla inf?.

so say you have 3 provences to defend, with either 12 inf with brigades or 15 straight inf. say its 1936 inf, its 276 defence vs 270... which i now realise is almost nothing, considering firing in battles.
does this i have been wasting my time on engineers?

 

[Brennan Tate]

Response to the calc. Plse also do the other side - the resistance - Org applies both offensively & defensively. Here is the comparison the quick & Dirty works on.

IV Cav NIL
Soft 95
HA 2 with org = 1.1 effective
SA 12 with org = 6.6 effective VS below = 5.94 effective
Tough 14 with org = 7.7 effective
Def 14 with org = 7.7 effective
Org 55

IV Cav with basic AC
Soft 90
HA 3 with org = 1.83 effective
SA 14 with org = 8.54 effective VS above = 8.113 effective
Tough 15 with org = 9.15effective
Def 15 with org = 9.15effective
Org 61

Resistance is 9.15/7.7 or 119% better & is 43% over Vanillas effective offence.

Offence is 8.113/5.94 or 137% better & is 5.4% over Vanillas effective defence

THe impact of the Hard attack is very marginal in the above example so have left it out

Point is even with more divs A/C divs SHOULD have defence for all Vanillas attacks, while they SHOULD have attacks over Vanillas defence, therefore less harm received (by a significant margin) and more done (marginally). The further point is the way the Cbt engine is indicated as working once you have the leg up it is a case of double benefit and double penalty.

On the question of slider moves while the observed effect is the org bonus from the slider is the last part of the calculation applied - after unit, after brigade. It is a proportionate bonus on the current max org of the unit, actually accentuates the A/C's effect - though rather marginal.

From current game (Nat China) - Doctrine org bonuses are +40% and slider (Standing army) is 2% unit org bonus. Vanilla Cav shows as max org 71 - ie (30+40)+(30+40)*0.02 = 71.4 showing as 71. With A/C shows 77 - ie (30+40+5)+(30+40+5)*0.02 =76.5 showing as 77

 

[blue emu]

surely if you have a front to defend 4 infantry with eng (+5 defence i think ) is better than 5 vanilla inf?.

No, the five vanilla Infantry are better... because they have 25% more total ORG, and will split the opponent's incoming fire in five different directions instead of four directions, resulting in 25% slower ORG-loss per unit per round.

so say you have 3 provences to defend, with either 12 inf with brigades or 15 straight inf. say its 1936 inf, its 276 defence vs 270... which i now realise is almost nothing, considering firing in battles.

First you have to understand how Defensiveness works in-game... from your comments, I don't think that you really have a good grasp of it.

I've explained this in many, many other posts... but here's my 1,317th attempt at explaining "How Defensiveness Works":

Unlike Soft Attack, Softness or Movement Speed... Defensiveness is an on-demand stat. It is only used one point at a time, in an attempt to block each incoming enemy shot as it arrives, and it is refreshed at the start of each new combat round. That means that if you are only getting shot at 5 times per round, it makes absolutely no difference whether your Defensiveness is 5 points or 5,000,000 points... you will take exactly the same damage in either case. Exactly the same... since only the first 5 Defensiveness points of your 5,000,000 will ever be used.

I repeat... excess Defensiveness, over and above the number of shots that your unit is receiving per round, is absolutely worthless. Not just: "of limited use"... worthless. It plays no role at all in the combat calculations. It's not even considered by the combat algorythm.

So the question is: how much Defensiveness is needed (or useful) and how much is "excess" (and hence worthless), and will never be used in any battle that's worth fighting?

Obviously, if you were going to attack a stack of 1,000,000 enemy units with one of your own units, the extra Defense points (actually Toughness in this case, not Defensiveness) would be "used" in a purely mathematical sense... but that's a battle that you would lose almost instantly, regardless of your Defensiveness... you would be completely vaporized by the enemy firepower before you could inflict any detectable damage.

The important question is: how much Defensiveness is useful or potentially useful, in battles that you have a chance of winning... or at least, of losing slowly?

To answer that question, consider common early-to-mid war Infantry units, and compare their Firepower to their Defensiveness:

[U]Year[/U]     [U]Soft Attack[/U]   [U]Defensiveness[/U]    [U]Def-to-SA[/U]
1918           5            13          2.6-to-1
1936          10            15          1.5-to-1
1939          12            18          1.5-to-1
1941          14            24          1.7-to-1
1943          16            30          1.9-to-1

Note that all of these units have at least 1.5 times as much inherent Defensiveness (even without brigades) as they have Soft Attack... and many are closer to 2-to-1. Since Defensiveness is an on-demand stat, any extra Defensiveness conferred by brigades would only be considered by the combat algorythm after all inherent Defensiveness has already been used up... which would only happen if you were outnumbered (after all modifiers for Terrain, Leadership, Supply status, etc) by more than 1.5-to-1

Since battle-winning ability (between otherwise equivalent forces) varies as the square of the respective numbers of units, if you are outnumbered by 1.5-to-1, then you are out-matched in battle-winning ability by 2.25-to-1, and will be guaranteed to lose that battle quickly and decisively... with or without any extra Defensiveness conferred by brigades.

In other words... the extra +5 Defensiveness conferred by an Engineer brigade will be ignored entirely in any battle that you might possibly hope to win... or even to lose slowly!... and will only play a role in battles where you are certain to get decisively smashed within a few hours anyway.

Even if the extra Defensiveness were to help you lose more slowly (and it won't; it is only called upon in situations where you are grotesquely outnumbered, and are quickly smashed)... I see no sensible advantage in configuring your armies to lose certain types of battles a little more slowly.

It would be much better to opitimize your army to win battles... which can best be done by maximizing your battle-winning ability: by building more Divisional units, who will contribute something useful, like ORG and SA, instead of building Engineer brigades, which contribute the relatively useless Defensiveness stat.

... does this i have been wasting my time on engineers?

Not if you've been having fun with them...

 

[unmerged(58898)]

looks like hes got me back