Brigades

[blue emu]

Response to the calc. Plse also do the other side - the resistance - Org applies both offensively & defensively...

I'm afraid that as far as I know, you are under a misconception.

ORG has no effect on SA or Defensiveness. Not that I'm aware. ESE does affect these values.

Neither in the game manual, nor in any of the published calculations that I've seen (Kanitatlan's, for instance), nor in my experience with the game has there been even the slightest hint that ORG modifies Attack and Defense strengths.

For example... it has been well established that Aircraft with minimal ORG (~5 or 6) still inflict full damage on their opponents during the few rounds that they fight before breaking off the battle... in fact, this is one of the points that many people complain about regarding Air Combat.

Where did you come by this info?

 

[Oberschütze Tex]

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.

Ahh... nothing like opening up the forum to see this again. It's something akin to getting a hankerin' for something really good to eat and then opening the door to step out. Finding not an unimpeded path to the nearest vendor of savory goods... but instead a Mormon and a Frenchman standing there, ready to proselytize you with their ideas about logic and ideal warfare.

Worthless junk that you add to something for flavour is better defined with Canadian Bacon.

see http://www.cookingforengineers.com/

Engineers are useful in taking fortresses and speed up your forward armour units, along with helping pad damage to divisions that are behind the power curve in certain situations ( like when your INF, MNT, or MAR or not upgraded yet ).

They also help speed up amphibious landings into fortified positions.

Sure you can park 32 transports in the bay, while you send wave after wave after wave of your country's finest slackers that didn't want to go to college to avoid military service. BUT you can get the job done just as well with two or three korps of marines <b>with engineers</b>. Save a click or two, help fight carpal tunnel syndrome.

That commie horde argument is only valid if you are commie. And it is flawed in that it doesn't take into account IC that can be stored via supplies that could be used to fuel other operations or construction ( like Naval, Air, or even holding to build after a tech has been researched ). (( That can get even more complicated because you can purchase units from allies with supplies or build forts, AA, or any other number of things that optimize the use of your country's industrial base )) ((( not to mention to mention that if you step into Poland with a 400 unit horde, you will starve to death before you can even sniff the Berliners on Kurfürstendamm without control of the skies )))

The battle winning/org argument is flawed because it ignores experience that is gained by units in smaller forces that can fight longer and earn special bonuses for their officers. Or even a limited availability of good officers with bonuses.

Engineers : second to none.

 

[Penegrin]

I am missing one huge influence (or maybe i'm jsut blind) on battles in all the math here: the leader

Some countries only have a few good leaders and even Germany may run out of the good ones after a while. Especialy when talking about tankers or commandos. So if I have to choose between 3 Inf + brigade under the command of a good comander (rank/skills/traits) or 4 inf under a good and a not-so-good commander I think I'd go for the first option. And if i only have a few good leaders I'll make sure they get some fine equiped troops.

Another factor is of course the stacking penalty. You may be able to send more unbrigaded troops into battle but then you are more likely to suffer from a stacking penalty...

I never did the math (cos i'm lazy...and dun wanna be b*tchslaped by emu ) but I'd say these 2 factors should also be included when measuring the effects of brigades...

*nowtakingcover*

 

[Borsook]

There is one more pro of brigades: fast reinforcements. If the enemy suddenly opens a new front on the other side of a continent you won't get your troops there very fast. But you can deattach brigades and attach them where they're needed 7 days later. Of course it is kinda unrealistic and works only on defence but it can really turn the tide if you've allowed yourself to be suprised. Also even if larger unbrigaded force is more cost-effective is it also true when it comes to reinforcing their losses? That said for me the biggest reason to use brigades is flavour. Due to that I even use ATs, SP-ATs and all other brigade types that exist...

 

[Mork]

Flavour trumphs, well everything really. You should play to have fun. Flavour adds fun.

If you like brigades, use them. If you don't, don't use them. The game is easy enough as it is that you can chose to get brigades or not (bad numbers for infantry, semi decent for expensive units).

 

[Mork]

Ahh... nothing like opening up the forum to see this again. It's something akin to getting a hankerin' for something really good to eat and then opening the door to step out. Finding not an unimpeded path to the nearest vendor of savory goods... but instead a Mormon and a Frenchman standing there, ready to proselytize you with their ideas about logic and ideal warfare.

Worthless junk that you add to something for flavour is better defined with Canadian Bacon.

I'll not comment on these insults (as it is).

Engineers are useful in taking fortresses and speed up your forward armour units, along with helping pad damage to divisions that are behind the power curve in certain situations ( like when your INF, MNT, or MAR or not upgraded yet ).

Engineers does *nothing* to your ability to win battles. At most, they will give you the ability to lose battles a slightly bit more slowly. Only hard or soft attack or more org/health will give you more battle winning ability. Engineers give none of these.

They also help speed up amphibious landings into fortified positions.

Certainly, and so does offensive supply (much more, and cheaper too). They also increase amphibious landings into non-fortified positions.

Sure you can park 32 transports in the bay, while you send wave after wave after wave of your country's finest slackers that didn't want to go to college to avoid military service. BUT you can get the job done just as well with two or three korps of marines <b>with engineers</b>. Save a click or two, help fight carpal tunnel syndrome.

Again, engineers does nothing to boost your battle *winning* ability.

That commie horde argument is only valid if you are commie. And it is flawed in that it doesn't take into account IC that can be stored via supplies that could be used to fuel other operations or construction ( like Naval, Air, or even holding to build after a tech has been researched ). (( That can get even more complicated because you can purchase units from allies with supplies or build forts, AA, or any other number of things that optimize the use of your country's industrial base )) ((( not to mention to mention that if you step into Poland with a 400 unit horde, you will starve to death before you can even sniff the Berliners on Kurfürstendamm without control of the skies )))

And there is a limit on how much "IC" you can "store". While you can store as much as you want, if you store more than you really needs (as I always do). Which releaves a very insignificant amount of IC, unless you already have a commie horde (which is certainly not limited to commies). Oh, and units purchased are tremendously expensive, not nearly worth it in IC if you buy it with supplies.

The battle winning/org argument is flawed because it ignores experience that is gained by units in smaller forces that can fight longer and earn special bonuses for their officers. Or even a limited availability of good officers with bonuses.

Engineers can only fight longer on a certain loosing battle, which earns nothing in terms of unit experience, as they have to be rebuilt. And if you are loosing that many battles that engineers make a difference, then you are loosing the whole war, which makes it redundant in any case.

Engineers : second to none.

Certainly not, ATs are more useless.

 

[Brennan Tate]

I'm afraid that as far as I know, you are under a misconception.

ORG has no effect on SA or Defensiveness. Not that I'm aware. ESE does affect these values.

Neither in the game manual, nor in any of the published calculations that I've seen (Kanitatlan's, for instance), nor in my experience with the game has there been even the slightest hint that ORG modifies Attack and Defense strengths.

Where did you come by this info?

Have run a further test. 11 Vanilla Cav vs 9 AC cav - same doctrines, same sliders, 0 Skill Gens (admit 1 was Def but he was attacking). The result a clear win to the AC cav.

Used Bulgaria & Romania. Edited the 36 set up files so both included Doctrines 6010, 6020,6030,6110,6120 & techs 1190 to 1120 (Cav) plus 2150 basic AC.

Set the sliders the same. Bulgaria has 11 Type IV CAV with no attachments, 0 Skill Field Marshall (has Def Doc but is attacking). Romania has 9 Type IV CAV with basic AC attached, Skill 0 FM. The attack was from Pleven to Constanta. Constanta is -plains & Clear. There is a 1.5% difference in ESE effect and due to timing defender counts dug in 1 so also small diffrence here. These should be too small to substantialy effect the outcome. Battle over in 2 days with Romanian's winning.

Note had to lock the Romanians to prevent them being redeployed by AI in the lead up.

Have the pre attack file & the post attack file plus the edited set up files. If any one wants these to look at plse PM me and we can work out how to get them to you.

 

[Borsook]

Battle over in 2 days with Romanian's winning.

Could you give some details? I.e. did the losers lose any strength? How much? And with what org are the winners left? Have you tried the same but switching attackers and defenders?

 

[Brennan Tate]

Could you give some details? I.e. did the losers lose any strength? How much? And with what org are the winners left? Have you tried the same but switching attackers and defenders?

Both with strength losses. Have run it several times and Strength losses are close - within 20 for each, some times Def looses less some times attacker. Org for defender is the bit which is most stable 20 to 30 org left vs 3 to 6 for the looser (attacker).

To do a full dual trial I need a better set up - will need dual vanilla gens etc. Would also like to avoid having to lock the OP For side to stop the AI messing things up - any suggestions??

Probably a better site is Romania vs Hungary - will do some more work on this and post results.

Might take me a little time as have a Major Work SNAFU to scope out in the next few days

 

[blue emu]

If the battle lasted two days then it included at least 12 hours of night, when the Attacker is penalized -80% and the Defender is penalized only -33%. The odds quoted in my post above are close enough that the Defender should always win such battles, regardless of which stack that is... because of the night modifiers.

For a proper test, it is essential to run it both ways... Cav attacking Cav-AC, then again with Cav-AC attacking Cav... and time each battle (in hours) and record the remaining Strength and Org of the winner in each case.

The Defenders should win each battle, because of the night and entrenchment modifiers... but the test should determine which side wins by the biggest margin.

 

[unmerged(18427)]

... or the Viking colony in Greenland insisting on cattle instead of fish or seals...and then slowly dying out...

OT: That hypothesis has been thouroughly refuted. Isotope analysis of the remains of the Greenland settlers show that their diet changed from one consisting of about 20% seafood during tha Namland period to one consisting of 50 to 80 per cent seafood in the 1300s. Diamond was either ignorant of these studies or choose to ignore them, as they were conducted a good three years before 'Collapse'. It's a fun read, though.

Don't mind me, back to the brigades and their general lack of usefullness!

 

[unmerged(57808)]

Bigger country´s always win!

But during the war much more men would have been called up. (If the country had survived long enough of course )

I agree with that you can call in more men. But the bigger country would have been able to call in even more men!...

However, a smaller country will always loose to the bigger one, if tech levels are relatively the same, and/or enough time goes on...

Afaik, if you are winning, something like a loss ratio 1:3 is conventional. I think I have heard of ratios of 1:10 (I think that was the ratio Vietnam, war peasants against mightiest nation on earth, same afghanistan me thinks)...
So if the enemy are bigger than you, and thus are able to take higher losses over time, it is clear that you must make sure that the war does not drag on, ´cause then you will loose.

But yes, for smaller nations brigades are what you go for. If you can not match the quantity, you make up for it by quality and bigger guns that are able to reach longer.


On topic: Brigades I use.
-Special forces (Mar, Mtn): arty
-Inf: 1 arty per 3rd (someone said that was good)
-Tanks/MEC: SPART
-MOTO: AC
-HQ: AA

 

[blue emu]

If the battle lasted two days then it included at least 12 hours of night, when the Attacker is penalized -80% and the Defender is penalized only -33%. The odds quoted in my post above are close enough that the Defender should always win such battles, regardless of which stack that is... because of the night modifiers..

Idea: Set the night_attack and night_defense modifiers for Cavalry to zero. You can write a custom event to do so, and fire it from the <F12> console... or just edit the values in the save-game. Take screen-shots of the combat mouse-over pop-ups to make sure that all modifiers are identical for the two sides. Then fight. The vanilla force should now win consistently.

 

[unmerged(60747)]

I disagree there... Engineers are junk.

They aren't even as good at River assault-crossings as a constant-Manpower stack of Infantry is.

Five vanilla Infantry (50 Manpower) actually have more battle-winning ability when attacking across a River than four Infantry-Engineers (50 Manpower)... despite the Engineer's 20% bonus on cross-River combat.

If Engineers aren't even any good at crossing Rivers... then they can't be good for very much.

Similarly, the Engineers' +0.5 speed bonus is rather over-rated. Four Corps, each of three Infantry-Engineers, take territory slower (not faster) than five Corps, each of three vanilla Infantry... 10% slower.

Well actually, I do agree on the fact that with regular infantry engineer brigades suck. I was thinking of engineer brigades attached to MOT combined with ARM but then, I though the speed bonus was +1 instead of +0.5.

 

[Borsook]

Well actually, I do agree on the fact that with regular infantry engineer brigades suck. I was thinking of engineer brigades attached to MOT combined with ARM but then, I though the speed bonus was +1 instead of +0.5.

they indeed have +1 speed bonus, though some divs have it capped so it can be less (e.g. Mil '43 won't get any).

@Blue Emu How come vanilla inf take territory faster? That's just plain impossible, they may fight better, cover more ground etc. but faster?

As for uses of eng - A corps of 2 ARM and 1 Mot (to get CA) has uniform speed if ARM get HARM and Mot gets Eng...

 

[Mork]

they indeed have +1 speed bonus, though some divs have it capped so it can be less (e.g. Mil '43 won't get any).

@Blue Emu How come vanilla inf take territory faster? That's just plain impossible, they may fight better, cover more ground etc. but faster?

As for uses of eng - A corps of 2 ARM and 1 Mot (to get CA) has uniform speed if ARM get HARM and Mot gets Eng...

Nope, they have a speed of .5, not 1. It does say 1 in-game, but that's because of rounding error. It's .5 in the files (and it works like .5).


Edit: From the files:

model = {
	cost 				= 4
	buildtime	 		= 45
	manpower 			= 2.5
	toughness 			= 3
	defensiveness 			= 5
	[B]maxspeed 			= 0.5[/B]
	supplyconsumption		= 0.12
	fuelconsumption			= 0.1
	upgrade_time_factor 		= 0.5
	upgrade_cost_factor 		= 1.0
}

Edit2: And *5* vanilla takes ground faster than *4* brigaded ones, as they can cover more ground in less time, and win more battles in less time.

 

[blue emu]

they indeed have +1 speed bonus

No, they don't.

model = {
	cost 				= 4
	buildtime	 		= 45
	manpower 			= 2.5
	toughness 			= 3
	defensiveness 			= 5
	[COLOR=Yellow]maxspeed 			= 0.5[/COLOR]
	supplyconsumption		= 0.12
	fuelconsumption			= 0.1
	upgrade_time_factor 		= 0.5
	upgrade_cost_factor 		= 1.0
}

@Blue Emu How come vanilla inf take territory faster? That's just plain impossible, they may fight better, cover more ground etc. but faster?

Infantry-Engineers are faster at taking one province... and if you only need to take one province, that's fine.

But what if you have 100 provinces to take, as in the USSR? Five stacks of vanilla Infantry can attack in more different directions, thus taking those 100 provinces faster than four stacks of Infantry-Engineers could.

As for uses of eng - A corps of 2 ARM and 1 Mot (to get CA) has uniform speed if ARM get HARM and Mot gets Eng...

No, they don't... Engineers are only +0.5, not +1

Most delays in prolonged campaigns come from stopping to re-ORG, not from being 0.5 Movement Points slower... and most ORG loss comes from fighting, not from moving. Adding SP-Art to your Motorized (instead of Engineers) boosts your Firepower by 1/3rd, thus winning your battles 1/3rd quicker and saving you 1/3rd of your potential ORG losses.

Also, there's a Minister who adds +5% to SP-Art combat efficiency (the same size bonus that Combined Arms gives), and any unit brigaded with SP-Art will receive this bonus.

 

[Mork]

Slowpoke .

The half-a-century has caught up with ya, huh?

 

[blue emu]

Slowpoke

You only beat me by eleven minutes... that's nothing compared to fifty years.

 

[noobermenschen]

Ah, Mork - You emu'd emu!

I love these brigade threads. I'm playing UK now to follow along on the Bomber thread and planning to brigade most of my divs long before I get Assault Concentration. I'm also looking at it from a research standpoint and looks like SPART is going to be tossed by the boards so I can rush Air Doctrines. My Tank divs will get Armoured Cars.

Oh, and what you guys call bacon is really ham, but it's still yummy.

And what's wrong with qwerty keyboards?