Current division Meta?

[TalyonUngol]

I have been listening to Feedback gaming often, and his math shows that.

10, 15, 27, 41, 42 and 44 are the current metas for width, but sadly, I was hoping that with the changes that really as long as I stuck to these division metas, I could create some awesome divsion templates with whatever I decided.

Like 4 arty, 2 AA, an armored car or two, and then infantry. To me, this sounds like a pretty cool division templates, however, my games are not going very well at all. I am struggling alot of push through Belgium and France, being bogged down by their really strong defenses.

So, I decided its tiem to finally break down and ask questions, on division templates and the meta. I think my strategies in game are solid, with trying to hug the coast to push through the maginot, but I seem to not get very far as Germany.

I dont build many fighters in the early game, as I am focusing my factories on tanks and infantry equipment(Guns, Arty, Support)) as well as Railway guns, and Anti Air guns.

 

[Corpse Fool]

What math from feedback?

 

[aletoledo]

"Meta" is what the multiplayer community is using at the moment, not just theorycrafting. Those particular widths were from a single article written by someone using a set of assumptions (i.e. global terrain average). So things can change a lot as people test things out. In Feedback's latest video he said that the current "meta" was 10w with CAS spam, but thats because it's what he favors, not because thats what the MP community favors.

For SP, personally I'm back to using 20w, as unusual as that sounds. I find that I rarely fill the width, so if I'm going to be under-width, then 20w is a good compromise that I'm so used to.

If I do make a template to encompass the new widths, I go with 16w and 28w. 16w I think is big enough not to suffer from being too small and it fits into most terrains close enough. The 28w I think is better than the aforementioned 27w, since it's an even number.

If you want to judge these widths for yourself, I think the following is the best analysis (authors name at the top): https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...7I0EZ6psw6DNitd1WVGlbFFdwE/edit#gid=345076780

 

[TalyonUngol]

"Meta" is what the multiplayer community is using at the moment, not just theorycrafting. Those particular widths were from a single article written by someone using a set of assumptions (i.e. global terrain average). So things can change a lot as people test things out. In Feedback's latest video he said that the current "meta" was 10w with CAS spam, but thats because it's what he favors, not because thats what the MP community favors.

For SP, personally I'm back to using 20w, as unusual as that sounds. I find that I rarely fill the width, so if I'm going to be under-width, then 20w is a good compromise that I'm so used to.

If I do make a template to encompass the new widths, I go with 16w and 28w. 16w I think is big enough not to suffer from being too small and it fits into most terrains close enough. The 28w I think is better than the aforementioned 27w, since it's an even number.

If you want to judge these widths for yourself, I think the following is the best analysis (authors name at the top): https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...7I0EZ6psw6DNitd1WVGlbFFdwE/edit#gid=345076780

So really just 20 width is working out well. Just the standard 7'2s or 10 infantry right? 40widths are a thing of the past? Cause again, I think my crazy division designs is whats hurting me lmao.

Putting AA into the template is probably stupid.

 

[aletoledo]

So really just 20 width is working out well. Just the standard 7'2s or 10 infantry right? 40widths are a thing of the past? Cause again, I think my crazy division designs is whats hurting me lmao.

Putting AA into the template is probably stupid.

I don't bother with 7-2s, just 10-0 (plus whatever support companies). What Feedback said and I agree with, is that roach infantry plus air is the most efficient strategy. Your infantry is there just to allow the CAS/TAC to bomb the enemy. If you add in artillery, you're just dropping the HP and increasing your IC losses. Feedback has a video where he does nothing but CAS and it's even trading against fighters.

Now since I play Japan and Italy, I use TAC rather than CAS. I also use 20w rather than 10w, mostly because of 1) lack of generals and 2) some MP rules frown upon less than 20w templates.

Finally, remember when you're picking a width, it assumes you are completely filling the combat, plus some reserves. All the calculations on width are factoring in the penalty of going over-width and that you're not micro'ing your units at all. If you micro'ing your units and therefore not filling battles with reserves, then the width theorycrafting is pointless. For example, if you only have two 27w divisions to attack with (total 54w), then you're going to be underwidth on every terrain, so all this theory doesn't matter. Another example, if you want to stack some divisions on an urban port tile for garrison (96w), that means you're stacking 3-4 divisions to add up to this width, so if you only have one division on garrison it's width is meaningless.

 

[WJLIII3]

So really just 20 width is working out well. Just the standard 7'2s or 10 infantry right? 40widths are a thing of the past? Cause again, I think my crazy division designs is whats hurting me lmao.

Putting AA into the template is probably stupid.

yes, putting AA into the template is pretty stupid, sorry. The armored cars aren't doing you much good, either. You don't want lots of diversity in division templates, you want simple blocks so they're easy to equip and keep equipped. But most importantly for your issues, you seem to be trying to push with those divisions, as Germany? Pushing is what tanks are for. Use tanks. Infantry just hold the line.

In 1939 nobody has enough planes that you should care about AA, and by the time they do, you should be the dominant world power, as Germany, and be able to outproduce them in planes and keep your divs safe that way. Armored cars are for garrisons, not combat, and AA battalions are generally considered a waste all around. If AA is called for, you use support and call it a day. (You may want to do this before Barbarossa, if you haven't gotten rid of UK yet, Soviets love planes)

Infantry divisions should be all infantry, so that they need exactly infantry equipment and nothing else to be fully supplied. Engineer support companies are top-notch. Maybe a maintenance support, support artillery if you have enough artillery production (Germany sure does). But none of that fancy mix-and-match crap. 7/2s or 14/4s (with artillery) are for when you can't afford tanks at all and need some kind of push infantry, but Germany does not have that issue.

Armor divisions should be half-and-half armor and motorized, they need the motorized to have some organization. Motorized divisions should be 100% motorized (7Mob/2MArt).

Only America can ever really consider mechanizing their entire infantry force, everybody else needs a lot more divs than they can make trucks for, so just use foot divisions. Plus, foot divisions can't run out of gas, while adding two armored cars to them means they can, and end up pushing their cars at 1km/h.

 

[pro.gamer.69]

for singleplayer 9/1 for defense and 11/2 for offense (outside of mountains) are seemingly optimal.

 

[SRhistory]

for singleplayer 9/1 for defense and 11/2 for offense (outside of mountains) are seemingly optimal.

Euhm… for SP I am using mostly 9/1 or 9/2 for offense and believe me it works very well. Of course with eng/aa/art/rec/at or for tanks 20w 6/4 with eng/aa/rec/at/supply use reduction (forgot the sort name). Worked more then fine with USA/USSR/GER/MEX/FR/JAP.

so 11/2 is a bit to much and cost to much of the supply system. But I am going to follow this thread to see some other advice (if any)

 

[pro.gamer.69]

9/1 is also good on offense but i believe takes slightly more losses than 11/2

10/0 with supports is best for "being able to break" stuff but takes the most losses by far

 

[Jays298]

I would take everything Feedback says with a grain of salt.

I don't believe there is an actual meta.

There's many many choices.

Beyond that, what's better...the perfect templates or extra XP used towards doctrines?

 

[TalyonUngol]

So if its just 10-0 infantry, which is fine, then what tank templates in terms of width? I know to always use as many motorized as possible without turning the division into a motorized division. You want to keep it a armor division.

However, I guess maybe theres also the tank designer that Im not doing well with. Cause my tanks aren't doing so hot((Could be too many tanks in a division. Im usually making 44width tanks))

I tend to make tanks that make sense. I usually use a three armored turret, Support Gun, Interlocked Road Wheels, Radio and whatever extra I wanna put on. I put on Armor and speed as well. But I still dont seem to make any punches in the Maginot, before I def hit the supply lock.

 

[blahmaster6k]

Beyond that, what's better...the perfect templates or extra XP used towards doctrines?

Templates. What use are doctrines if all your divisions are terrible and lose because they're designed horribly?

 

[Jays298]

Templates. What use are doctrines if all your divisions are terrible and lose because they're designed horribly?

I think you'd have to try very hard to make a terrible template. It would seem like most templates fall to average.

 

[Corpse Fool]

I think you'd have to try very hard to make a terrible template. It would seem like most templates fall to average.

I haven't actually done it, but I think that if we took a look at all of the designs of templates that are possible, a lot of them would actually be terrible for one reason or another. As long as you actually obey some of the basic rules of thumb when it comes to template design, it certainly can seem pretty hard to make a bad template. I think that we as players will at some level be following those rules and will automatically ignore a lot of the obviously bad choices like pure AA or something. I think that natural tendency to avoid making the easy mistakes is going to bias your sort of statement.

As long as you have a solid core of infantry-types (leg, mot, mek, etc) for HP/org, you can add flavour in the forms of various artilleries and/or tanks and generally end up fine. But you have to actually have that core first.

 

[Stolen Rutters]

One point is to recognize that the “meta unit” is not the whole picture. They flattened the combat width bonuses, and yes, it still matters, but that is not why there is no true meta unit based on combat width, ultimately.

Spoiler

-Also, notice CAS is powerful, but that “swamp them with CAS” to win doesn’t mean CAS is god, per se.
But…
Why did I bring up CAS? Look, a squirrel? No. It’s because I’m trying to say that…

Stacking modifiers may start with the unit, but includes many more factors besides. There is an air bonus, terrain bonus, weather bonus, in-supply bonus, and more…

1. Have a good enough Air Force… Combat bonus 1.
2. Running into Russian swampland during the muddy season? Go around. Combat bonus 2.
3. Capture the closest enemy supply depot and supply problems may switch from you to them. Combat bonus 3.
4. And so on.

Tldr
The modifiers you get from the meta unit isn’t the reason you win or lose, especially when you are ignoring all the other factors that combine to make your unit “unable to fight”.

Spoiler

Why is 1art-9inf or 2art-11inf even considered one of the “meta” units? Because it’s affordable!!! It gives you breathing space in your factories to pile on the CAS, and let’s you make some tanks if you need them, and infantry doesn’t stress your supply system so bad in the heat of the fight, so you can fight farther from your supply hubs.

Why is adding armored cars to your units killing you? Because it ate up limited resources for not enough gain. And the fault is not really armored cars, the fault is your economy wasn’t big enough to support the armored car buildout without sacrificing air forces and tracks and other stuff.
…Well actually it could be the armored cars since they eat up some supply, you might need level 4 train link to the front to prevent a supply fighting penalty, and that unit is your new meta unit… where you max train supply.


But the point is wider than armored cars. The point is that the unit “meta” isn’t the only thing that makes you win the fight.

I’m not sure I made sense there. It’s late, maybe I’ll fix this up tomorrow. Less wordy. Must sleep. Good night.

 

[Supremeleaderpies]

This was posted by someone in the forums post update. I think its a great resource.

 

[Corpse Fool]

This was posted by someone in the forums post update. I think its a great resource.

That looks a lot like the one that was going around on reddit and feedback looked at. That one had a lot of flaws in it. Namely, squaring the penalty and ignoring tactics and over stacking.

 

[jacekgk]

I would take everything Feedback says with a grain of salt.

I don't believe there is an actual meta.

Definetely agree. I watched all his videos in these threads, I see, how he and community try to find the most optimal meta in some combat width, but I respect him, that he admits that nobody knows the proper numbers. In his video about 10-width + CAS spam results was OK, but not so great and with fully respect - I think he could make better results with any different divisions.

After many playtroughs, successfully and failed campaings my opinion is, that something like current meta in the sense of the former division 10/20/40 does not exist anymore. Almost everything (for me: between 20 - 30 and some few smaller) could work fine. And I agree that in some specific terrain type (like desert in North Africa) exists one proper division type. But in other places I recommend two approaches:

1. Take care of Your support companies. I'm not a number guy, so it is hard to say for me, if it was changed something or no, but oh God - especially divisions with support flame tanks, rocket artillery and AA are almost unstopable.
2. Choose Your divisions type depending on Your main enemies. For example, I have noticed, that in early - mid game 21 combat width are working fine against Allies. Against German: it is more complicated, they like to do 27 combat width with some support. I throw against them 27 or 30 combat width divisions with more soft attack ant breakthrough thanks doctrines, support companies and army spirits. Versus Soviet Union and Italy everything works fine. Against Japan and USA I haven't fight a lot yet since NSB realised, so it is hard for me to say something more.

This is for attacking. If You want to defence Yourself - 10, 15, 18, 20 combat width will be working fine. Probably 20 combat width divisions will be the best option, because it gives opportunity to change it very quickly for something more decent.

 

[blahmaster6k]

Pretty much. A lot more is viable than before, and you're not grossly handicapping yourself unless you use very specific widths that are very slightly overwidth for wherever you're going to be fighting.

I still like big 42w tanks though, they give a good org/hp ratio and good concentration of stats which is important if you're trying to fit as much firepower under one general as possible.

 

[Cavalry]

Beyond that, what's better...the perfect templates or extra XP used towards doctrines?

Luckily, most of the template is the same effective, so you don't and should not pay too much xp for template any way.

For example, most nation start with a 9inf template, now add 1 support AA, 1 support Art to that and it done for defender.
A forest/mountain/hill.. defender can have Eng, and some more Artillery, the Eng-line artillery combo is much efficience than spread arty. 15-22 width is OK. Just remember 22w is the maximum width to join any battle with room left. And you will want to join battle as much as possible now.

To summarize: no more than 22w. For attackers, can be as low as 10W.