curious what others are thinking. Based on the tiny bit we do know, what are your thoughts on division compositions for well, any country? Just for fun.
Division composition
- Thread starter jalapen0
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
What you will use probably in most part depend on which doctrine you use.
- 1
Yes, I'm looking for what people will put together. I'm thinking this for the tip of the spear. Heavy infantry to pierce the line for tanks to rush through:
4 btn motor inf
2 btn hvy tank
2 btn art
1 eng
1 signal
4 btn motor inf
2 btn hvy tank
2 btn art
1 eng
1 signal
- 1
I think you may be better of with normal infantry as heavy tanks may slow down your motorsied infantry to much, and I don't know if motorised offers much of a combat advantage over infantry.
Maybe just go with heavy tanks + rocket artillery + some anti air for your breakthrough divisions.
Like:
Later on super heavy armor may be better choice.
Maybe just go with heavy tanks + rocket artillery + some anti air for your breakthrough divisions.
Like:
- 6 btn hvy tank
- 6 btn rocket art
- 2 btn anti air
- 1 btn anti tank
- eng
- maintenance
- logistics
Later on super heavy armor may be better choice.
- 4
Eww yea. Thats a good one. I picked inf due to soft attack but I like that one. The tanks are then a giant shield protecting the rocket art which is pounding the enemy.
Heavy tanks may have bonuses vs forts, Podcat said something that super heavy will be very strong against forts but not anything else.
Rockets have better offensive ability then coventional artillery so I picked them, but if you wan't to conserve you research you may have to forget about them.
Here is a relative cheap manpower conserving division made to fight infantry heavy divisions, it will likely not hold the line but the damage it can cause may win you the war in the end.
Rockets have better offensive ability then coventional artillery so I picked them, but if you wan't to conserve you research you may have to forget about them.
Here is a relative cheap manpower conserving division made to fight infantry heavy divisions, it will likely not hold the line but the damage it can cause may win you the war in the end.
- 10 art btn
- 2 anti air btn
- 2 anti tank btn
- Maintenance
- Hospital
- Engineer (for dig in bonus)
Last edited:
- 5
We'll be able to build straight art divisions? Wouldnt they be overrun rather quickly?
Edit: even in a defensive position.
Edit: even in a defensive position.
Presumeably a lot will depend on the starting templates for the nation being played. These theoretical ideals are all very well, but you'll need to accumulate the experience to implement them.
Yes you can build art only divisions. Yes they may not last long, but art offers the most firepower and at low manpower cost and the casulties such divisions may cause upon an enemy may have the enemy think twice before attacking.
- 1
Knowing HoI, AA is probably going to be useless as you're better off using the IC to produce fighters.
- 4
- 1
We don't know what will be effective in the game yet as we have not played the game. Im pretty sure you can play the whole game with only artillery as your ground force if you wan't and do well.
Things have changed since the old times and AA is up for big changes.
Things have changed since the old times and AA is up for big changes.
- 4
Otherwise somebody will likely mod the game. They have said that anti air will reduce the effectivness of enemy aircrafts attacking your ships and ground forces and I don't think you can dominate the air so much the enemy aircraft are grounded, I think the air war will be more like both sides attack and defend which is why anti air make sense even if you have a powerful air force.
Here is a very cheap division that may be suited for everyone but its mainly for nations that need a powerful army for a very low price in terms of resources.
- 10 Infantry division
- Engineer (optional)
- Hospital (optional)
- Other supports are also optional
It may be useful for a country like Finland who have minimal amount of resources. Forts can be built without any resource need and offers significant but local defensive power. Behind the walls of a fort it may be very hard to move this division and Finland is not really suited for tanks which is the counter to forts, add in winter and you can maybe hold your territory against the Red army or Wehrmacht for a long time.
Last edited:
I highly doubt that. At least in HoI2 (and maybe HoI3?) AA actually affected aircraft on the way to their destination, where as in HoI4 it only affects them at their target. Hell, in HoI4 you can't even intercept bombers until they reach their target. However, even in HoI2 AA was basically a waste of resources.
It is of course very different in real life, and I hope they've finally managed to model that at least somewhat correctly. But I'm quite skeptical.
- 3
- 1
In HoI3 I think AA just deterred bombers from bombing that province which made them not that helpful because damage to bombers would make it a lot more useful. I think HoI4 will be the same and fighters will be more important.
It decreased the chances for the AI to bomb that particular province. Still a total waste of IC compared to fighters and pretty much completely useless against a human player.
Same goes for AA brigades which were even more useless.
BlackICE actually made AA brigades OK by giving them piercing (Flak 88, anyone?). Add to that the highly increased Combined Arms bonus of BICE and you'd find yourself not necessarily disbanding every single AA brigade you start with. In fact it was likely worth building more to serve as AT.
But even in BICE, AA brigades would hardly ever be used in the AA role.
Last edited:
- 3
Assuming AA has an air zone wide effect of diminishing the effectiveness of enemy planes i can see it being effective. Essentially it helps you win a war of attrition. if you both have 1000 fighter planes deployed into the same zone, of the same quality, with all else being equal the winner will be the one fighting over his own anti air guns.
Assuming AA isn't prohibitively expensive to build, it would be an attractive alternative to nations that A) will be facing a high quality enemy, luftwaffe trying to bomb london for example, or B) has an oil deficit that will already put them behind in the air warfare attrition battle (like germany before they secure oil locations like romania)
i can see it being worthwhile this time around, although i can also see the world where its simply easier to just build more fighters and deploy them everywhere
Assuming AA isn't prohibitively expensive to build, it would be an attractive alternative to nations that A) will be facing a high quality enemy, luftwaffe trying to bomb london for example, or B) has an oil deficit that will already put them behind in the air warfare attrition battle (like germany before they secure oil locations like romania)
i can see it being worthwhile this time around, although i can also see the world where its simply easier to just build more fighters and deploy them everywhere
Artillery reduces the organization so many artillery would make them weak, i think.
- 4
- 1