Do i need AT in ALL the divisions to neglect the enemy's Armour?

[Sweynforkbeard]

Tanks for all the advices you guys provide!

let me clarify myself better.

Well, first of all, this problem with AT didnt come out from any practical situation i was facing. I was trying to create a theoretically good composition of Infantry Corp with some flavor, in a context which:
1. i would concentrate most of my Armour in several army( Panzergroup) and rest parts of my front line, will be most likely consist of Infantry.
2. I micromanage all my divisions.
3. These corps need to be jack-of-all-trade ( and of course master of none) kinda type of things, consist different types of divisions to fulfill different kind of missions.
4. Very hard difficulty
5. The game version is TFH.
The last one is where the problem came from. Before TFH, i really never bothered to use any fancy support unit, my infantry divisions were exclusively consist of only 3 infantry brigades, with the set in mind that i would rarely use my infantry corps to attack well defended lines unless i have good number advantage, in which case the support unit doesnt matter that much anyway. The saved IC would better be used to produce more planes and tanks. I havent played HOI3 since TFH came out, and just again picked up the game recently, (i think you guys might already have had a good amount of discussions about the "new" AP-mechanism, although i didnt find the answer of my question through forum search). I dont want to overlook the AT now, and dont want to place myelf in a bad situation against the enemy armour because of that. ( Although im not certain of the real impact of the "new" AP-mechanism) And i really dont want to build too many ATs because of my old maybe outdated impression of it as a really bad support unit.
So then there's the idea that if the AT provide AP protection to all the divisions in a battle, i would build 1 AT division for every corps as a reserved countermeasure to enemy armour attack; if not, as many of you stated, i would probably go back to my old way and again dont mess with them at all...Which is kinda sad because the new Mechanism was the main reason why i want to re-explore the game and re-design my army composition, and now it looks like nothing had really changed :unsure:.


again thanks for all the replies, some of your advices will definitely be included in my future experiment.

You may consider this. It is really beneficial to have atleast one support brigade in each division.

Firstly, it will allow your division commander to gain the battlemaster trait.
Secondly, if you prioritise Battlemasters in every HQ above division level the trickle down effect means that adding a single support brigade to a division will yield a 15% increase in combat effectiveness rising to 25% if or when the division commander have/or gain the BM trait.

 

[icedlemon]

You may consider this. It is really beneficial to have atleast one support brigade in each division.

Firstly, it will allow your division commander to gain the battlemaster trait.
Secondly, if you prioritise Battlemasters in every HQ above division level the trickle down effect means that adding a single support brigade to a division will yield a 15% increase in combat effectiveness rising to 25% if or when the division commander have/or gain the BM trait.

well, this is something i have really overlooked! I'm still thinking the Battlemaster trait as it was before TFH. Doesnt this means that the Battlemaster is the best trait in TFH and the old offensive/defencive traits become a little bit too shabby..? and i thought only terrain expert traits can be learn through battle.
thanks for the tips

 

[icedlemon]

I normally let the AI run my infantry line, while I drive my special forces and mobile/armored forces. The AI is better with interchangeable units than it is with specialized ones. I also don't play on VH. If you micromanage everything, you are probably better off with specialized units. I just don't have the patience for it.

My default infantry (for a major) is: INF/INF/ART/AT

Germany is more Manpower bound than anything else, so I'd use the above as Germany unless I was playing a gimmicky build plan. Same with Britain and the US.

As Russia, I've gone: INF/INF/INF/AT or MIL/MIL/ART/AT because their Manpower and IC are less limited than their Leadership.

As NatChi, I've gone pure INF or MIL for my divisions because you are Leadership limited more than Manpower, and Japan will field little in the way of Armor for you to pierce. I also found myself needing to build a lot to build practicals to get to the point of having an air force or navy, so your IC tends to get tied up there.

All of these plans may change later in the game, when the early limitations on the nations have been reduced by conquest.

the reason why i dont let AI control my army is because they suck in VH difficulty... and the reason why i play in VH is that i like playing germany and ze germany is too overpowered in normal difficulty... the reason why i like playing germany is... cant think out anything really particular... just feels good...:happy:

 

[Traks]

From practical perspective, around 15-20% of infantry having AT is good enough. Put in key areas, and put firebrigades behind lines too. If enemy attacks with armor in different place, shift AT divisions and move firebrigades to help.
Tanks will also help to cover as needed, but their main task is not to engage enemy tanks unless really needed.

 

[Kovax]

I would reccomend having 2 or 3 divisions in each corps decked out with AT, in such combos as 2 INF 2 AT, or the like. The rest can be built normally.

Normally, you only need one AT brigade in a division for its higher Piercing stat. Regular INF with decent AT weapons tech levels should provide enough sheer firepower, unless the opponent is using EXTREMELY "hard" divisions (such as HARM+MEC combinations). Note that the combination of 2xINF+ART+AT gives you the basic line troops, an indirect fire support unit, and a direct fire support unit, for a nice Combined Arms bonus. Switching to 2xINF+2xAT not only gives you a lot less SA against the vast majority of the opposing army for a very minor increase in HA, but it also surrenders that indirect fire support's CA bonus. Except against those extreme-hardness specialty divisions, 2xAT might actually be LESS effective against most armor divisions than the combination of ART+AT.

 

[Secret Master]

Normally, you only need one AT brigade in a division for its higher Piercing stat. Regular INF with decent AT weapons tech levels should provide enough sheer firepower, unless the opponent is using EXTREMELY "hard" divisions (such as HARM+MEC combinations). Note that the combination of 2xINF+ART+AT gives you the basic line troops, an indirect fire support unit, and a direct fire support unit, for a nice Combined Arms bonus. Switching to 2xINF+2xAT not only gives you a lot less SA against the vast majority of the opposing army for a very minor increase in HA, but it also surrenders that indirect fire support's CA bonus. Except against those extreme-hardness specialty divisions, 2xAT might actually be LESS effective against most armor divisions than the combination of ART+AT.

Yep. Stacking HA in any division usually isn't that awesome. There are times I end up with divisions that have high HA as a byproduct of other avenues of optimization (some key methods of lowering softness in armored divisions involve doubling up TDs).

The way various mechanics in TFH work, it's almost always better to spread key brigades with key abilities out among divisions than concentrating them. You won't ever see me putting more than one LARM, ARM, HARM, AT, MOT, or MECH in any division. I will very rarely double up on TD, but that's got nothing to do with HA or penetration and everything to do with lowering softness even further. Ditto with AC.

 

[Kagernaut]

Not sure about that, SM. An infantry brigade has significantly less HA than an AT gun. If your division has higher HA, then you do more HA; combat performance aside against softer units or even if you lose quickly, that division will still nail a tank to the wall faster than 4xINF divs.

Tanks are mostly hard, so attacking them with higher HA is always better than not. I am by no means reccomending that people run around with divs that are 1 INF 3 AT, but a few divisions of that kind in key points where the enemy is advancing with armor could change the course of that advance, don't you think? In the same token, wouldn't you want to have certain divisions stocked with AA brigades rather than giving all your divisions an AA brigade? Those divs would facepalm against infantry if they were designed like 1 INF 1 INF 1 AT 1 AA, whereas divisions designed to fight aircraft with AA but not against other infantry would guard pretty well against air assaults---an AA brigade has much more air attack than an infantry division.

I have played several games lately where I am opposing an enemy who can pierce my armor with AT, and still steamrolled him. Even though he was removing the effect of my armor, my divisions were still well built---but mostly hard. Were his divs using higher hard attack overall, it would have been quite painful.
Its different when comparing to another brigade type, like Arty, which has equivalent soft attack as an INF brigade IIRC. Having more than one or just one doesn't give you any advantage besides less width. Similar situation with tanks, you never double up on tanks divs because, well, its pointless; the only thing you'll get is less softness, but that can be obtained with different brigades, and there isn't much use to low softness if you don't have good soft attack or even exceptional hard attack.

Personally, when I am designing armies that are centered around the concept of "Mobile Armor" if you will, I prefer to spread out the AT, but I like to concentrate it in certain divisions in each corps. It isn't necessary to weaken my divisions by adding in AT, and then they go off and fight INF at a handicap than they could have had, but I do need the AT so I design specific divisions for fighting tanks and move them into the battle when its necessary.

 

[Kagernaut]

Ah, thinking about it, both AI and humans usually build armored divisions that are around 50% softness, except later on when they might combine HARM, MEC, and TD. So, generally having higher HA in a division isn't that useful, especially if the division is above 50% softness.

So I'll retract that, my bad

 

[misterbean]

Ah, thinking about it, both AI and humans usually build armored divisions that are around 50% softness, except later on when they might combine HARM, MEC, and TD. So, generally having higher HA in a division isn't that useful, especially if the division is above 50% softness.

So I'll retract that, my bad

I thought human players would have a tendency to go hard, but I have never played MP.

 

[Lord Curlyton]

To get any truly "hard" units in TFH you generally have to use multiple armored brigades in a division. Using MOT/MECH to flesh out your frontline and SPART as a support means you will generally have something just north of 50%. Use an AC instead (and they are wonderful now), and its just south of 50%. I think high tech ARM/2xMECH/AC will get you something like 35% softness, which is usually as low as it goes for single brigade armored divisions (a similar HARM setup might be able to get close to 30%). Basically, P-Dox has made the old CA value of 33-66% basically the range in which your various armored division compositions are going to end up.

If you use double armored brigades, THEN you can get some really hard armored divisions, but it will still be a struggle to get south of 20%, and that will be an IC beast, as well as supply hell if you try to build more than a corps of them. I've wanted to try out building 3xHARM divisions that scoff at the notion of combined arms behind their meaty 10% softness and using those to smash things that need smashing, but I just shudder at the thought of supplying even a few of those outside of the friendly confines of Western and Central Europe. Maybe on my next Soviet run...

 

[msaaim89]

@Kovax Why do you add infantry with your Korps HQ? HQ's cannot fight.

 

[sunsterson]

Not sure about that, SM. An infantry brigade has significantly less HA than an AT gun. If your division has higher HA, then you do more HA; combat performance aside against softer units or even if you lose quickly, that division will still nail a tank to the wall faster than 4xINF divs.

Tanks are mostly hard, so attacking them with higher HA is always better than not. I am by no means reccomending that people run around with divs that are 1 INF 3 AT, but a few divisions of that kind in key points where the enemy is advancing with armor could change the course of that advance, don't you think? In the same token, wouldn't you want to have certain divisions stocked with AA brigades rather than giving all your divisions an AA brigade? Those divs would facepalm against infantry if they were designed like 1 INF 1 INF 1 AT 1 AA, whereas divisions designed to fight aircraft with AA but not against other infantry would guard pretty well against air assaults---an AA brigade has much more air attack than an infantry division.

I have played several games lately where I am opposing an enemy who can pierce my armor with AT, and still steamrolled him. Even though he was removing the effect of my armor, my divisions were still well built---but mostly hard. Were his divs using higher hard attack overall, it would have been quite painful.
Its different when comparing to another brigade type, like Arty, which has equivalent soft attack as an INF brigade IIRC. Having more than one or just one doesn't give you any advantage besides less width. Similar situation with tanks, you never double up on tanks divs because, well, its pointless; the only thing you'll get is less softness, but that can be obtained with different brigades, and there isn't much use to low softness if you don't have good soft attack or even exceptional hard attack.

Personally, when I am designing armies that are centered around the concept of "Mobile Armor" if you will, I prefer to spread out the AT, but I like to concentrate it in certain divisions in each corps. It isn't necessary to weaken my divisions by adding in AT, and then they go off and fight INF at a handicap than they could have had, but I do need the AT so I design specific divisions for fighting tanks and move them into the battle when its necessary.

When you steamrole when you get pierced in Africa?

 

[Lord Curlyton]

@Kovax Why do you add infantry with your Korps HQ? HQ's cannot fight.

The INF brigades allow them to fight. HQ is just counted as a support brigade like any other; if they are given a combat brigade the whole division can participate in combat.

 

[Kagernaut]

When you steamrole when you get pierced in Africa?

Man, I killed so many of your italians it wasn't even funny. One corps of my tanks pushed back 4 corps of your troops. C'mon, if I had kept supply, you would have lost the entire area.

 

[Kagernaut]

The INF brigades allow them to fight. HQ is just counted as a support brigade like any other; if they are given a combat brigade the whole division can participate in combat.

This. Gives a sixth brigade, but most importantly, more experience gain for HQ leaders.

 

[DaveyDave]

Basic Principles :

1. Putting AT in every division is economically and militarily wasteful.

2. Napoleon designed the corps in his armies to be A) Able to withstand an attack by an entire enemy army for one day at least (which was shown to be possible at Auerstadt, among other battles) and B) with combined arms (in those days, cavalry, artillery and infantry) to be able to defeat an enemy force of equal size. This basic principle can be applied in HOI3.

3. I most often play the Soviets, and what you do depends on which country you play . . . but with the Soviets for example I design a basic corps composition to be capable of holding or defeating an enemy force of equal size and composition, or to be able to substantially delay an enemy force of armor or one of substantially greater size. In other words, relative to your question, the idea isn't to have a single division composition that you apply across the board, but to have division groupings that have flexibility and strength. So, when playing the Soviets I base all combat operations on the corps, and a corps contains 2 to 5 divisions, *with at least 1 division having good pierce and HA ratings*. The most successful design so far is a corps as follows :

Rifle Divisions x 1 to 3 with INF+INF+INF+ART or RART
Rifle Divisions x 1 to 2 with INF+INF+TD+AT.
Corps HQ with HQ+INF+INF+ENG

If enemy armor hits this corps (and the corps is always kept in a stack) it will take several days for the armor to win the battle, while it loses org and strength. During that time, the corps can retreat or hold if reinforcements can be moved up.

Enemy infantry cannot defeat this stack without support.

In the attack, this corps is excellent at softening up a heavily defended enemy position before being hit with either a Shock Army or Tank Corps.

Most of what was said by other posters is good stuff as well.

Edit : for this to work well, you need to research techs that help out your arty and td bdes in org and morale, as well as having the practical techs that give good SA, HA and Pierce values.

Edit 2 : Later on you can include an exploitation division in the corps composition, LARM+LARM+AC (or something close to that) so that when your corps attacks and defeats an enemy infantry stack, the exploitation division will reach their retreat province before they do, thereby overrunning it and removing it from the board.

 

[Sweynforkbeard]

Hmm,
for a major there really isnt much point creating flexibility at the corps level. At the most your typical frontline corps will cover 2 provinces. A specialized anti-tank killer corps might be useful at the army or army group level but rarely at the corps level.
For the standard frontline division you should really go with either one or zero ATs and no more than that.

 

[sunsterson]

Man, I killed so many of your italians it wasn't even funny. One corps of my tanks pushed back 4 corps of your troops. C'mon, if I had kept supply, you would have lost the entire area.

Lol. More allied propaganda

And at op:

No

 

[Kovax]

@Kovax Why do you add infantry with your Korps HQ? HQ's cannot fight.

LONE HQs cannot fight. HQs with attached line brigades can not only fight, but inflict casualties. They have combat values for both SA and HA, which can be increased through the mobile doctrine lists, Defensiveness and Toughness which can be increased through the INF doctrines, and ORG levels which can be increased via an Armor doctrine.

If you're paying to supply those HQ brigades anyway, why not put them to some direct use? The game provides about as much experience to the Corps commander for being in direct combat as it would to have the entire rest of the Corps fighting, and having both happen doubles the normal rate of experience gain. As a set of bonuses, it offers a chance for one more axis of attack, to deny one more avenue of escape for routers, or to seize provinces, and reduces the number of decent unit commanders needed for those smaller countries who barely have enough at all, with many of those at "0" skill. Quite simply, 6 > 5, and part of that 6th is already paid for.

 

[Kagernaut]

LONE HQs cannot fight. HQs with attached line brigades can not only fight, but inflict casualties. They have combat values for both SA and HA, which can be increased through the mobile doctrine lists, Defensiveness and Toughness which can be increased through the INF doctrines, and ORG levels which can be increased via an Armor doctrine.

If you're paying to supply those HQ brigades anyway, why not put them to some direct use? The game provides about as much experience to the Corps commander for being in direct combat as it would to have the entire rest of the Corps fighting, and having both happen doubles the normal rate of experience gain. As a set of bonuses, it offers a chance for one more axis of attack, to deny one more avenue of escape for routers, or to seize provinces, and reduces the number of decent unit commanders needed for those smaller countries who barely have enough at all, with many of those at "0" skill. Quite simply, 6 > 5, and part of that 6th is already paid for.

^^All the above. I have been doing this for a long time now. It really helps, very much so for minors as well.