Cheap but functional motorized template

[BloodAsp]

Hi,

I noticed that some countries (like France) start with mot templates already, and some (like France) have templates which can be easily converted.
I always seem to have too many trucks, and they are cheap to produce + in the scenario when I fight before 1939/1940 only heavy\light tanks are available.
So I was thinking about 20width mot division which could keep up with light tank divisions + maybe participate in normal battles to provide some cheap overruns.
10 X mot + eng, Support art, mot recon, maaaybe support AT?
What is your stance on motorized art? I could add 2 to the template at the cost of 3 mot infantry regiments. That would add some soft attack to the template...
What about 1 light tank regiment?

I am completely against Light SP art:
It requires additional research + production line + resources.

 

[Casko]

depending on how your air dominance vs Germany is, Support AA might be considered.
And for cheap, non SPAR. you could simply go either with full 20 Width mot, with Support Art, AT, and AA.
Or use regular Motorized Artillery, a motorized version of 7/2 infantry template.

My favorite way to go with Motorized however, is to get Motorized Rocket Artillery, as once researched, it doesn't need another upgrade, so it can always stay at full industrial efficiency, and is one of the few technologies that go well with concentrated industry branch of research, leading to rapid stockpiling. The Soft Attack they have is also quite considerable, and help you to keep artillery to Infantry divisions instead.

 

[noobermenschen]

Hi,

I noticed that some countries (like France) start with mot templates already, and some (like France) have templates which can be easily converted.
I always seem to have too many trucks, and they are cheap to produce + in the scenario when I fight before 1939/1940 only heavy\light tanks are available.
So I was thinking about 20width mot division which could keep up with light tank divisions + maybe participate in normal battles to provide some cheap overruns.
10 X mot + eng, Support art, mot recon, maaaybe support AT?
What is your stance on motorized art? I could add 2 to the template at the cost of 3 mot infantry regiments. That would add some soft attack to the template...
What about 1 light tank regiment?

I am completely against Light SP art:
It requires additional research + production line + resources.

If you want your division to fight as well as dash I would add motorized ART. I would also add AA and AT, either motorized or support, if I were fighting Germans. Light Tank II recon will give you an armour value of around 5 and that is enough to gain an armour bonus against any pre-1942 division that does not have AA, AT or tanks.

I am a fan of lt SPART as it makes obsolete and capture light tanks useful and really doesn't take a lot of research (30 days or so) or resources (if you are recycling tanks). As France I did not research Medium or Heavy Tanks and fielded a 40 width Motorized, if I recall correctly 12 MOT/1 MOT ART/1 MOT AT/1 MOT AA/2 lt tk/ 3 lt SPART. I had a whole two of them to start WWII:

Spoiler

I have wondered if swarming 5 x MOT with lt tk recon, engineers and support ART and maybe AA would be useful in closing encirclements or lunging for victory points. I don't know if it would work against Germany, but might be useful in Russia (so long as you can keep them supplied!).

 

[Spelaren]

How good is motorized rocket artillery? Why not use a light tank artillery?

 

[Casko]

L-SPA2 has Soft attack of 42.0 to Motorized Rocket Artillery's 36.0.

MotRocket Artillery however costs 1 steel 1 rubber to Light SPA's 3 steel 1 tungsten.


So on paper L-SPA is better throughout 36-40, however there are things such as industrial efficiency, resources, and the fact, that if you go Rocket Artillery tech path in Artillery path tech, you can further boost soft attack Motorized Rocket Artillery has, while light SPA3 is behind light tank tech, and for most parts, its better to focus on Medium or heavy tank variants, rather than light tanks past 1936 in terms of usability and stats.

Similarly if you plan to use Motorized Rocket Artillery, you most likely are willing to eat the ahead of time tech penalty to get them before the war starts, or use a research boost to get them, or in case of Soviets, use the Motorized design company to get the production running early on.

Similarly Light SPA has relatively low armor, so any amount of AT can easily shred them, so the armor they give is mostly useless against any major country.

 

[Tsavong]

Why not use a light tank artillery?

Idk. I use mot. rocket arty only for meme reasons. For example in divisions with only motorized infantry, mot. rocket and light or medium TD. Those are not bad: They defeat infantry, hold the ground against tanks and are fast. They are worse doing so then many other divisions and not cost effectiv ( additional techs and production needed), but it works. And the sound of rocket arty while attacking is fun.

If you want something cheap and more competent use mots in small numbers in light tank divisions. Forget about there armour value and that most infantry breaks that. Its all about how fast those divisions can push through an ifantry defence in flat terrain and encircle huge parts of the enemy frontline.
I always delete the starting mot. and tank divisions and rebuild them to light- tanks divisions with 26 or 40 width depending on expert ai settings used. Sometimes only l-arm +mot inf., sometimes i use l-spa too.
I leave like 7 factories on light tanks and sometimes 3-5 on l-spa..You then have about 3-9 light tank divisions depending on width. If you then still have mots. left you just used to many factories to build mots .-)

 

[sekelsenmat]

As Germany I use 9xinf 3xmot art, don't remember which support. It works great to follow tanks during encirclements and is a historically correct template. I think the Soviets and UK also used this.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

L-SPA2 has Soft attack of 42.0 to Motorized Rocket Artillery's 36.0.

MotRocket Artillery however costs 1 steel 1 rubber to Light SPA's 3 steel 1 tungsten.


So on paper L-SPA is better throughout 36-40, however there are things such as industrial efficiency, resources, and the fact, that if you go Rocket Artillery tech path in Artillery path tech, you can further boost soft attack Motorized Rocket Artillery has, while light SPA3 is behind light tank tech, and for most parts, its better to focus on Medium or heavy tank variants, rather than light tanks past 1936 in terms of usability and stats.

Similarly if you plan to use Motorized Rocket Artillery, you most likely are willing to eat the ahead of time tech penalty to get them before the war starts, or use a research boost to get them, or in case of Soviets, use the Motorized design company to get the production running early on.

Similarly Light SPA has relatively low armor, so any amount of AT can easily shred them, so the armor they give is mostly useless against any major country.

These kinds of mot divisions never have amazing attack. They just need enough to blast strat redeploying stuff out of the way and keep moving quickly. I wouldn't recommend diverting significant IC time to fast artillery for these divisions, use whatever you're making otherwise for contested fights. If that means only MOT + support arty, that's still a functional breakthrough exploitation division.

 

[Casko]

These kinds of mot divisions never have amazing attack. They just need enough to blast strat redeploying stuff out of the way and keep moving quickly. I wouldn't recommend diverting significant IC time to fast artillery for these divisions, use whatever you're making otherwise for contested fights. If that means only MOT + support arty, that's still a functional breakthrough exploitation division.

well, the discussion here is of motorized divisions that can fight as well as run around at rapid speed without SPA in them. in which case Motorized Rocket Artillery is quite a decent alternative.

And I am fully aware that Motorized Rocket Artillery use in divisions is not most meta thing, or most efficient, however, they are not useless either. and can do what you need them to do, and has certain synergies that are less often talked about.
Also using things that are uncommon tends to be more fun than meta designs at times.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

well, the discussion here is of motorized divisions that can fight as well as run around at rapid speed without SPA in them. in which case Motorized Rocket Artillery is quite a decent alternative.

And I am fully aware that Motorized Rocket Artillery use in divisions is not most meta thing, or most efficient, however, they are not useless either. and can do what you need them to do, and has certain synergies that are less often talked about.
Also using things that are uncommon tends to be more fun than meta designs at times.

It isn't "useless", but I don't see the practical value compared to mot + support arty. The rate at which you clear strategically redeployed armies will be pretty similar, and neither will be good at securing the initial breakthrough relative to tanks. Or even heavily arty-gouged multi-directional attack infantry setups with planning bonus (which are the budget option for minors that struggle to afford tanks).

Worse still, adding that arty will increase supply footprint, and in narrow breakthrough areas that can not only slow down your encirclement rate with fuel issues, it can straight up impede any marginal extra soft attack you're receiving from using the arty.

 

[el nora]

As Germany I use 9xinf 3xmot art, don't remember which support. It works great to follow tanks during encirclements and is a historically correct template. I think the Soviets and UK also used this.

27 width is not a good look. Historically correct or no, I would never abuse my divisions in game to that extent.

Motorized artillery, like truck-drawn rocket artillery, has absolutely abysmal soft attack per ic. Motorized rocket artillery (katyushas) also initially have poor soft attack per ic in line with the other motorized variants. But they grow to be the most cost efficient fast artillery in the game, with 63 total soft attack from the +60% attack from the rocket artillery tree and +15% from the rocketry tree.

Light SPG, while they have higher initial soft attack, also have much higher cost. So much so that their soft attack per ic is 75% of the katyusha. They provide other, tangential benefits, such as armor and hardness. But now this division is starting to become a whole lot more tanky, where efficiency is less important than total attacks, and a whole lot less motorized, where efficiency is more important than stacking attacks.

Support artillery and rocket artillery are 2-3x as cost efficient as katyushas. And they can also keep up with motorized. If you take SF initial right for the +50% support soft attack, they reach 51 and 55.1 soft attack respectively and are the only unit to break 0.9 soft attack per ic, 4-5x as efficient as the katyushas. Nothing else even comes close.

 

[SchwarzKatze]

27 width is not a good look. Historically correct or no, I would never abuse my divisions in game to that extent.

Motorized artillery, like truck-drawn rocket artillery, has absolutely abysmal soft attack per ic. Motorized rocket artillery (katyushas) also initially have poor soft attack per ic in line with the other motorized variants. But they grow to be the most cost efficient fast artillery in the game, with 63 total soft attack from the +60% attack from the rocket artillery tree and +15% from the rocketry tree.

Light SPG, while they have higher initial soft attack, also have much higher cost. So much so that their soft attack per ic is 75% of the katyusha. They provide other, tangential benefits, such as armor and hardness. But now this division is starting to become a whole lot more tanky, where efficiency is less important than total attacks, and a whole lot less motorized, where efficiency is more important than stacking attacks.

Support artillery and rocket artillery are 2-3x as cost efficient as katyushas. And they can also keep up with motorized. If you take SF initial right for the +50% support soft attack, they reach 51 and 55.1 soft attack respectively and are the only unit to break 0.9 soft attack per ic, 4-5x as efficient as the katyushas. Nothing else even comes close.

Motorized artillery's IC cost can't be compared with those of SPG and Katyusha's because you already make use of motorized and artillery equipment elsewhere in bigger quantities, while SPG and Katyusha both require dedicated manufacturing lines. Also chances are that you have been producing trucks and artillery since 1936 so you can arm more motorized artillery faster then Katyusha.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

In extreme cases you could outfit motorized + truck drawn arty solely with captured equipment. Along with support equipment this stuff is among the most common stuff made/taken after infantry kits.

 

[el nora]

Motorized artillery's IC cost can't be compared with those of SPG and Katyusha's because you already make use of motorized and artillery equipment elsewhere in bigger quantities, while SPG and Katyusha both require dedicated manufacturing lines. Also chances are that you have been producing trucks and artillery since 1936 so you can arm more motorized artillery faster then Katyusha.

Why do you have so great a stockpile of artillery that you can tap into it for line battalions without exhausting it? It's not like they're actually good enough to be used in large numbers elsewhere in your army. Except when used in support. But one to two factories on artillery is enough to equip all your infantry with support arty. Whatever you decide to make will require a dedicated line.

But you're right, if you're mass producing motorized, it's because you have tank divisions that need infantry, not because you have motorized divisions that need artillery. Motorized divisions are too expensive for too little payoff to be used except in support of tank divisions. Any selection of mot art, katyusha, or spg is inefficient, because that ic should have been used in outfitting tanks instead of producing unnecessary battalions in unnecessary divisions.

Any form of fast artillery is nigh useless for the role that motorized divisions play in the game. You might as well just stick with support guns and call it a day.

 

[Cavalry]

Cheap? the easiest is half width division like 10w MOT for 20w game (or 20w MOT if enemy use 40w)

But the real life MOT divisions will have some tank and will be used in attack. So you can try 1-3 tank for MOT divisions, more tank for spear head TANK divisions.
It is very useful when you are low in tank divisions, they can break infantry in their own attacks and save your expensive tanks division for really hard battles.

 

[BloodAsp]

Thank you all for your input.
Unfortunately I presented you with the problem, but without presenting circumstances:
I like to cheeze few wars before 1939/40 (before great war starts). After capitulating minors like Hungary or Romania you get A LOT of war booty like guns, infantry weapons and plenty of trucks. Since trucks are not really used besides armored divisions, recon and engineers - I end up with TONS of them without the need to build them (and I since I love to use MEC, I end up with recovering most of them anyway). And all these early wars give me plenty of army exp anyway.
So I was thinking about pushing 2-3 capable mot divisions using these captured trucks.
From what you are saying it would be best to use 7mot+2mot art, then after rockets will become available switch to katyusha

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Switching still isn't worth. Making divisions when the alternative is not using stockpiles of free crap is justifiable, actually investing IC into something that still won't be impressive less so.

No matter how you kit mot divisions they're not going to break lines without massive planning bonus investment/overloading (at that point just use infantry/arty if you don't have tanks), so their only significant use case over ordinary infantry divisions is to rapidly capture uncontested territory while occasionally punting strategically redeploying crap out of the way in the process. The marginal value of adding rocket artillery or whatever just isn't significant to this role.

All you need them to do is go fast and shove stuff with barely any org out of the way, and just running pure trucks or trucks + arty with some support companies gets that job done about as well as you can expect.

 

[Spelaren]

Is rocket artillery support battalions worth it? Or main ones? Is rocket artillery trucks any good in either role? (if rocket artillery trucks can be put into support battalions)

 

[Cavalry]

Is rocket artillery support battalions worth it? Or main ones? Is rocket artillery trucks any good in either role? (if rocket artillery trucks can be put into support battalions)

rocket artillery support is one of the support to rush. Dirt cheap and efficient. Rocket artillery is nearly the same as regular artillery, just use different resource. The Motorized rocket artillery (not truck-drawn rocket art) is cheaper than both kind of truck drawn artilllery, and never obsolete; but require one addtion tech.

 

[Spelaren]

rocket artillery support is one of the support to rush. Dirt cheap and efficient. Rocket artillery is nearly the same as regular artillery, just use different resource. The Motorized rocket artillery (not truck-drawn rocket art) is cheaper than both kind of truck drawn artilllery, and never obsolete; but require one addtion tech.

Do i use rocket artillery support and regular artillery support?