Do you upgrade Armor at all on AC and LARM? Exploitation ROLE

[bbrkic1]

By not upgrading their armor beyond what you need to get ARM, you get really incredibly speedy exploitation division, for instance I use 2xLARM + 3xAC.

However, I'm a bit undecided if I should sacrifice some speed in order to get armour and be a much durable and capable division.


What's the general consensus on this?

EDIT: I've seen LARM shares armour upgrades with Mot and Mec so I feel compelled to upgrade it's armour. So now it's only a question of do I upgrade AC armour as well?
What would an experienced player with limitless IC and manpower do?

 

[roverS3]

As so often, the answer is, it depends.

If you're pairing L Arm with Mot, you might as well go for the L Arm Armour upgrade as it will reduce your unit's speed by just 0,1 kph per round of upgrades because Mot is slower than L Arm and L Arm Armour only reduces Mot speed by 0,1. If you add Armoured Cars only to Motorised (not Mech) formations, the AC Armour upgrade will not slow down the overall unit.

If you pair L Arm with Mech and Armoured Cars, you'll remark that speed increases are different for those three units:
L Arm has a speed of 9 kph after the first to rounds of upgrades to get Arm.
AC has a speed of 9,4 kph at the same point, if you haven't researched any AC armour upgrades.
L Arm Engine upgrade will add +1 kph to L Arm, the L Arm Gun upgrades reduces speed by 0,1 and the L Arm Armour upgrade reduces that by 0,4 kph, so with armour: +0,5 / without armour: +0,9
L Arm Engine upgrade will also add +0,2 kph to Armoured Cars, and the AC Armour tech will reduce that by 0,1, so with armour: +0,1 / without: +0,2

Starting at 9 kph (L Arm) and 9,4 kph (AC) you get the following sequence without armour upgrades: 9 / 9,4 , 9,9 / 9,6, 10,8 / 9,8 etc.
with armour upgrades for both you get: 9 / 9,2 (with AC armour upgrades up to 1936) / 9,5 / 9,3 , 10 / 9,4 etc.
Now, if we research L Arm Armour, but not AC Armour, we get: 9 / 9,4 , 9,5 / 9,6 , 10 / 9,8 etc.
A unit will move as quickly as it's slowest part, so if you combine AC and L Arm in the same unit, you might as well research L Arm Armour. (which will also boost the defensiveness of your Mot units)
Mech speed will increase by 0,4 without armour upgrades, and 0,2 with L Arm Armour upgrades. This means it will increase at the same rate with the L Arm Armour upgrades as AC does without AC Armour upgrades. This means that Mech, which starts from a 9kph base speed will not slow down the L Arm AC combo because it starts out faster than L Arm and keeps up with AC. Late game it might be interesting to mix in some Mechanised infantry with your L Arm, AC unit to give it more staying power, L Armx2, ACx3 isn't going to do very well on the defensive armour upgrades or not, especially with no Infantry in the mix and against units with up to date AT weapons. (also note that without any kind of infantry in the unit, you're foregoing the combined arms bonus (in TFH) )

However, if you're looking for the absolute fastest unit in the game, SP R Art is the fastest support brigade (IIRC). If you combine L Arm, SP R Art, (and maybe Mechanised Infantry), the calculus does change, and skipping the L Arm Amour upgrade will help you get the absolute maximum possible speed out of the unit. Mot AA is also really fast (faster than AC given the right upgrades). (I don't have the figures at hand right now)

The new Piercing attack vs Armour dynamic of TFH also has an influence. On the defensive, having a higher Armour value than your enemy's piercing attack value means your unit takes less damage. Infantry starts with 4 piercing damage (Art deals no piercing damage) and L Arm starts with 5 armour and AC starts with 3.2 Armour. Now, the calculation is based on the highest value amongst the brigades of each division, so after one round of Inf AT weapons updates, you don't get the Armour bonus anymore against Infantry (Inf piercing attack = 5 / L Arm Armour = 5). Now, L Arm Armour, and Inf piercing attack increase at the same rate (+1/round), so if you continually research L Arm Armour, your L Arm, AC unit will never be overmatched by Infantry, which gives you a significant defensive advantage. This reinforces the logic for researching L Arm Armour in case you pair it with AC. (no speed penalty, and you keep armour advantage). Not researching L Arm Armour makes your unit more vulnerable to enemy Infantry (but upgrading AC Armour does nothing in this respect). If the enemy has a lot of AT in his Infantry Divisions, this doesn't matter because regardless of Armour upgrades, your L Arm will always be overmatched by AT.

In the end, if you don't need speed, and the terrain isn't too bad Arm is going to be better than L Arm in most cases. Apologies for the long dissertation, the gist is this: If you're building L Arm, AC units, upgrade L Arm Armour but not AC Armour.

 

[Kovax]

Once I've unlocked ARM, I generally upgrade all of my LARM. For supporting infantry that can keep up with the ARM+2xMOT+AC armored divisions to hold ground behind, them, or race ahead to do overruns, I just fill the division out with another MOT instead, so it's 3xMOT+AC. The MOT are more resilient than the LARM, since by the time you're going up against serious opposition, many of those divisions will be able to pierce your LARM anyway. Then again, since I don't play MP, it's not necessary to have the "best", only "good enough".

 

[Alex Kernel]

It makes sense to always upgrade LARM because it is the best exploitation division, due to its unrivalled speed and decent armour. By the beginning of 1942 LARM will be hurtingly overmatched by the ARM divisions, and you will need the latter on the European frontlines in higher numbers to do the hard work. Nonetheless, LARM remain priceless due to their speed and manoeuvrability on difficult terrain, unlike the higher tier panzers. LARM will exploit breakthroughs in no time and complete encirclements before the enemy can react to save his units.
As for the division composition, one can maintain a LARM division competitive from a firepower point of view by ammasing 5x LARM. This is a feasible choice also because the fuel consumption of these armoured brigades is modest.
ARM divisions are way more powerful, but also slower and consume lots of supplies and fuel. Putting a 5xARM (that is stronger than any CA division) even on a high infrastructure province/region on the map will choke the limited supply lines for the other divisions around. A military operation is a team work, and a few Armoured divisions alone cannot do the job alone. So, one has to compromise firepower for sustainable consumption, with the partial compensation of combined arms bonus. My ARM divisions look like this:
ARM + ARM + MOT+ SPART + TD.

 

[Wraith11B]

Another thing to consider is that AC provides a speed boost (which is, unfortunately, unaccounted for to the player) which makes the whole division faster than if it didn't have the AC unit.

 

[bbrkic1]

Another thing to consider is that AC provides a speed boost (which is, unfortunately, unaccounted for to the player) which makes the whole division faster than if it didn't have the AC unit.

That's why I like them so much. I've had 2x LARM + 3xAC in desert go around 15+kph. After I saw Mot and Mec share an Armour upgrade I concluded I just need that upgrade, but I'm a bit hesitant on the AC armour one.

I'm planning to invade Great Britain which holds all of Germany's and Italy's territory as Communist China that owns almost the entirety of Asia including Japan, apart from UK's position there, Persia, Afghanistan and Turkey

I've prepared 3 theatres. African one, where I plan to take the Suez and purge France, Eng and rest of the allies there. Asian one, where I want to mop up what's left of Eng there and finally Spanish one.
I've conquered Nationalist Spain in order to set the staging ground for my attack.

I think I am way over preparing but since I've never actually fought a major power I don't know.

For my most important theatre, the Spanish border with France, I've prepared 30 Militia divisions all with 2 ART to hold land, 4 corps of Marines, 4 corps of Mountaineers, 4 corps of 2xLarm + 3AC and finally for my Armour divisions,

I went with Arm, Mec, Mec, Spart, Spart and Harm, Mec, Mec, Spart, Spart. I have several corps of these.

1) Do they make sense, can I improve them somehow?
IC doesn't matter, I have 2k+ manpower after all this so do I need more?

I've also prepared a massive air force of TAC and RINT with some CAS.

2) Can multiple bombers bomb the same province if I don't put them in the same wing to avoid stacking penalties?

I'm worried about the British Fleet. I have 6 fleet of 4 Carriers + 8 Light Cruisers and several fleets of Heavy Cruisers which I plan to station at Gibraltar.

3) Is that enough and will they have stacking penalties if they are all in the same patch of water if I put them in separate fleets?

 

[Kovax]

Stacking penalties are based on the number of units in combat. If they're not fighting, stacking doesn't matter as long as you can supply them. If attacked or all attacking simultaneously, however, they'll ALL add to the penalty. I prefer to send groups of around 5, sometimes 6, planes into a province, since if they're attacked, that's about the point where additional aircraft begin to actually REDUCE your total firepower due to stacking penalties. That means either a group of 3 bombers and 3 fighters to protect them, or else two groups of 3 fighters to take on opposing fighters.

Ships also suffer stacking penalties if above the command limits of the admiral in charge of the combat. Fortunately, that penalty is less punishing than the air penalty, so while you don't want a naval "doomstack", having a few ships over the Admiral's rating can still be a positive move. Better yet, a few of the naval air missions have reduced stacking penalties as well, so you can field 5-6 carriers in a province without getting shredded, whereas the 10-12 planes on an air or ground attack mission would be at a serious disadvantage against 3-5 opponents. If you put all of that stuff in Gibraltar, don't take it out as one group, or you'll see just how nasty stacking penalties can get.

Air stacking reduces the effectiveness of ALL of the planes in the combat by 10% per plane over the limit, but some missions count the first plane while others only count those over 1. As said, some naval missions only suffer half the penalty, so you can run twice as many planes before your total firepower begins to drop with each additional plane. For missions where each plane counts against stacking:

1 plane @ 10% stacking penalty = 0.9 effective firepower
2 planes @ 20% = 1.6
3 planes @ 30% = 2.1
4 planes @ 40% = 2.4
5 planes @ 50% = 2.5
6 planes @ 60% = 2.4
7 planes @ 70% = 2.1
10 planes @ 90% penalty (capped at 90% max) = 1.0
30 planes @ 90% penalty (capped at 90% max) = 3.0

A group of 10 planes will get torn up by 4-6 opposing aircraft, although technically you can mass enough aircraft to overcome the penalty, but with TERRIBLE per-plane efficiency.

Having 6 planes can actually be slightly beneficial over 4, because you're able to spread incoming fire out among more planes, where their individual Defensiveness has a reasonable chance to negate the first couple of shots taken at them. Defensiveness and Toughness are mostly broken for air combat in HOI3 due to an error in transferring game assets from HOI2 to HOI3. One game used percentages, the other decimal fractions, so HOI3's techs only provide a tiny decimal fraction of a percent in Defensiveness and Toughness, rather than several percent. The difference is fairly minor, but more planes are still better at surviving incoming fire.

 

[roverS3]

I went with Arm, Mec, Mec, Spart, Spart and Harm, Mec, Mec, Spart, Spart. I have several corps of these.

1) Do they make sense, can I improve them somehow?
IC doesn't matter, I have 2k+ manpower after all this so do I need more?

(H) Arm, Mec, Mec, SPArt, SPArt is a very powerful unit. However, you might want to consider switching out one of the two SP Art brigades for something else to take full advantage of the combined arms bonus, and to make them even more versatile. Possibilities here include:
Tank Destroyers to make the units stronger against enemy armour, especially on the defensive. ( (H) Arm, Mecx2, SP Art, TD) The speed of TD's is highly dependent on the updates you've researched, as TD gets both Arm Armour and H Arm Armour, meaning that if you update both, TD becomes a bit slow, better to be paired with H Arm, if you update neither, it becomes very fast.
Engineers to allow your tank units to do better in urban and wooded terrain, against fortified positions, and even across rivers. (Eng does have a few downsides, like the speed being capped at 8 kph, the fact that there is no doctrine to improve it's Org or Morale, and the fact that the unit itself doesn't do that much damage)
Mot-AA will increase the attrition of enemy air wings that bomb your unit, and also give some extra firepower against enemy armour. In the AT role the only advantage of Mot AA over TD is it's higher speed (depending on upgrades selected), so if planes aren't a problem, this can be rather pointless.
AC, is a bit weak, but as stated above, it will speed up your units ever so slightly, I'd only do this in the Arm divisions if you do it at all as increasing the speed of H Arm is a bit pointless.
Replacing SP Art with SP R Art is rather pointless as it doesn't give you an added combined arms advantage and SP R Art isn't significantly better than SP Art save for it's speed.

2) Can multiple bombers bomb the same province if I don't put them in the same wing to avoid stacking penalties?

See @Kovax ' post on stacking penalties above.

I'm worried about the British Fleet. I have 6 fleet of 4 Carriers + 8 Light Cruisers and several fleets of Heavy Cruisers which I plan to station at Gibraltar.

3) Is that enough and will they have stacking penalties if they are all in the same patch of water if I put them in separate fleets?

Yes, 6 fleets of 4 CV , 8 CL should be plenty, and you should never have two of those on the same patch of water as you will suffer serious stacking and positioning penalties on sea and in the air. The AI will rarely field anything stronger than a 2 CV fleet. You should have loads of spare CAG wings ready though so you can rotate out depleted units from the CV's. If you don't do this, you can lose CAG wings entirely because regardless of strength, they will automatically take off to intercept enemy planes attacking the fleet as long as they have some org, so they can just get shredded if you don't keep a close eye on CAG strength. A few spare CL's might also be a good investment as you might occasionally encounter a faster fleet that manages to close to the CL's and do some damage to your cruiser screen. Unless all of your cruisers get chewed up, which is very unlikely if they are sufficiently modern, your carriers should only ever take damage from enemy aircraft.

 

[bbrkic1]

(H) Arm, Mec, Mec, SPArt, SPArt is a very powerful unit. However, you might want to consider switching out one of the two SP Art brigades for something else to take full advantage of the combined arms bonus, and to make them even more versatile. Possibilities here include:
Tank Destroyers to make the units stronger against enemy armour, especially on the defensive. ( (H) Arm, Mecx2, SP Art, TD) The speed of TD's is highly dependent on the updates you've researched, as TD gets both Arm Armour and H Arm Armour, meaning that if you update both, TD becomes a bit slow, better to be paired with H Arm, if you update neither, it becomes very fast.
Engineers to allow your tank units to do better in urban and wooded terrain, against fortified positions, and even across rivers. (Eng does have a few downsides, like the speed being capped at 8 kph, the fact that there is no doctrine to improve it's Org or Morale, and the fact that the unit itself doesn't do that much damage)
Mot-AA will increase the attrition of enemy air wings that bomb your unit, and also give some extra firepower against enemy armour. In the AT role the only advantage of Mot AA over TD is it's higher speed (depending on upgrades selected), so if planes aren't a problem, this can be rather pointless.
AC, is a bit weak, but as stated above, it will speed up your units ever so slightly, I'd only do this in the Arm divisions if you do it at all as increasing the speed of H Arm is a bit pointless.
Replacing SP Art with SP R Art is rather pointless as it doesn't give you an added combined arms advantage and SP R Art isn't significantly better than SP Art save for it's speed.


See @Kovax ' post on stacking penalties above.


Yes, 6 fleets of 4 CV , 8 CL should be plenty, and you should never have two of those on the same patch of water as you will suffer serious stacking and positioning penalties on sea and in the air. The AI will rarely field anything stronger than a 2 CV fleet. You should have loads of spare CAG wings ready though so you can rotate out depleted units from the CV's. If you don't do this, you can lose CAG wings entirely because regardless of strength, they will automatically take off to intercept enemy planes attacking the fleet as long as they have some org, so they can just get shredded if you don't keep a close eye on CAG strength. A few spare CL's might also be a good investment as you might occasionally encounter a faster fleet that manages to close to the CL's and do some damage to your cruiser screen. Unless all of your cruisers get chewed up, which is very unlikely if they are sufficiently modern, your carriers should only ever take damage from enemy aircraft.

I was under the impression that stacking penalties applied only if I put too many ships in one group but you're saying they will apply if I put multiple fleets on the same square as well? That's huge, I have to reposition a ton of fleets then, the invasion is just about to start.

 

[roverS3]

I was under the impression that stacking penalties applied only if I put too many ships in one group but you're saying they will apply if I put multiple fleets on the same square as well? That's huge, I have to reposition a ton of fleets then, the invasion is just about to start.

I'd refer to @Kovax 's more detailed post above for a more precise breakdown:

Ships also suffer stacking penalties if above the command limits of the admiral in charge of the combat. Fortunately, that penalty is less punishing than the air penalty, so while you don't want a naval "doomstack", having a few ships over the Admiral's rating can still be a positive move. Better yet, a few of the naval air missions have reduced stacking penalties as well, so you can field 5-6 carriers in a province without getting shredded, whereas the 10-12 planes on an air or ground attack mission would be at a serious disadvantage against 3-5 opponents. If you put all of that stuff in Gibraltar, don't take it out as one group, or you'll see just how nasty stacking penalties can get.

It is still better to have them in separate groups as having too many ships in one group because the stacking penalty itself is only applied when you go over the limit of the number of ships your commander can lead. You do still take a positioning penalty in naval battles that is negatively impacted by the number of ships. In the case of your CV fleets, you should be more worried about stacking penalties for planes, this is halved over sea provinces for CAG missions, so you can have up to 12 CAG groups over, or 6 CV's on, a sea province before you see seriously diminishing returns. I would definitely not recommend having more than two of your CTF's on a single sea province at any one time.

 

[Kovax]

I was under the impression that stacking penalties applied only if I put too many ships in one group but you're saying they will apply if I put multiple fleets on the same square as well? That's huge, I have to reposition a ton of fleets then, the invasion is just about to start.

The other option is to promote one of your fleet commanders to handle the larger number of ships which may be present in a battle. The down side to that it that every promotion cuts any future experience gain for that leader by half, so you don't want to promote any higher than is needed to keep stacking penalties within acceptable limits.

CAG Duty is a VERY powerful mission, and is active by default for all carrier-based aircraft. The problem with it is that the carrier's planes will ALWAYS fly if they have even the barest shred of Organization, which recovers slightly every hour. They can be reduced to zero ORG, and one hour later they're back in the air. It's very easy to miss that your CAGs are out of ORG and taking serious Strength damage, yet flying over and over, until they're destroyed....."Where are my CAGS?" It only takes a couple of days while your attention is devoted to something else.

Unlike rebasing to a ground airfield (unless you use a "Reserve" mission), rebasing to a carrier incurs no loss of ORG, so you can move a battered CAG to a land airfield to repair, and then replace it without penalty with a fresh CAG. Build a few spare groups.

If your CVLs are fast enough not to slow down the whole fleet, it can be a good idea to put one or two in a Battleship fleet. Unlike CVs, CVLs are valued below the BBs and BCs, so the escorts won't drop back to defend the carrier, leaving the BBs unprotected. One or two are usually enough to sharply reduce the damage to the fleet by opposing CAGs and Naval Bombers, but your own CAGs will likely take a lot of concentrated punishment unless there are additional planes present on your side to spread out the incoming fire.

Note that fighting within range of your land-based INT or FTR can be extremely effective against opposing CAGs, since land-based fighters are significantly more effective at air combat than CAGs.

 

[bbrkic1]

The other option is to promote one of your fleet commanders to handle the larger number of ships which may be present in a battle. The down side to that it that every promotion cuts any future experience gain for that leader by half, so you don't want to promote any higher than is needed to keep stacking penalties within acceptable limits.

CAG Duty is a VERY powerful mission, and is active by default for all carrier-based aircraft. The problem with it is that the carrier's planes will ALWAYS fly if they have even the barest shred of Organization, which recovers slightly every hour. They can be reduced to zero ORG, and one hour later they're back in the air. It's very easy to miss that your CAGs are out of ORG and taking serious Strength damage, yet flying over and over, until they're destroyed....."Where are my CAGS?" It only takes a couple of days while your attention is devoted to something else.

Unlike rebasing to a ground airfield (unless you use a "Reserve" mission), rebasing to a carrier incurs no loss of ORG, so you can move a battered CAG to a land airfield to repair, and then replace it without penalty with a fresh CAG. Build a few spare groups.

If your CVLs are fast enough not to slow down the whole fleet, it can be a good idea to put one or two in a Battleship fleet. Unlike CVs, CVLs are valued below the BBs and BCs, so the escorts won't drop back to defend the carrier, leaving the BBs unprotected. One or two are usually enough to sharply reduce the damage to the fleet by opposing CAGs and Naval Bombers, but your own CAGs will likely take a lot of concentrated punishment unless there are additional planes present on your side to spread out the incoming fire.

Note that fighting within range of your land-based INT or FTR can be extremely effective against opposing CAGs, since land-based fighters are significantly more effective at air combat than CAGs.

You're a treasure trove of info on this game, I can't thank you enough, and it goes beyond this post. I learnt the game by reading thru posts on this forum and many of those were yours dating years back.

I learned from you the trick of minimal training while not reinforcing and then reinforcing to full with specialized training, among other things. I also remember you said the first mobilization is half priced in terms of MP. How did you know that?

Also maybe you know why my supply usage sometimes goes rampant like wasting 15k in a day "into the network". I partially blame the AI SR a lot as I had 3 theatres to fight on.

The AI is decent enough at conquering land masses, I had good success with it cleaning up central Europe and the entirety of Africa, but is notoriously bad at utilizing all the bombers I gave him and island hopping.


Also since USA is so far away, is it ever a valid strategy to use just CVs for their range? Or is island hopping, then connecting the islands with supply convoys the only way to reach it?

 

[Wraith11B]

The logistics system is "feeding" the system through your stockpile, but remember that it only moves one province a day. So, divisions might be screaming for supplies, but the system ain't moving them faster, and thus, the supplies are "in the network" trying to reach the divisions. Then, when all of that stuff gets there, it then sends the supply it doesn't need back... which complicates things.

If you have enough of a buffer, I wouldn't worry too much about it.

We know these things because... we drink, and we know things. Seriously, though, we have just been around so long and these sorts of questions are so frequent (because of the obtuse nature of the game) that we've just had to revisit the same questions over and over again that it became second nature for the response. I think some of us have a template for this at this point.

 

[Kovax]

The other complication with the supply system is that it works fine when units move directly toward or away from their supply depot, but tends to get really wonky if/when they move laterally. It has to shift the supply route, and a lot of the supplies which were in transit end up getting routed back to the supply depot because their "target" is gone. Strategic Redeployment puts another wrinkle in the system, and the excess supplies being dumped into the network as distance increases also cause fluctuations, as noted by Wraith11B.

Basically, it works well if/when nothing is moving, but once the front begins to change, its problems begin to show. Of course, that doesn't explain why a garrison unit can sit in a province adjacent to a major supply route, yet be out of supply for up to a year at a time. Move it over one province in ANY direction and it's fine. As awkward as it is, the fact that HOI3 HAS a supply system puts it light-years ahead of any other game on the subject. As the saying goes, "Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics", and HOI3 actually requires the player to consider the logistics behind an invasion. Now if only the effects of railroads had been included.....

 

[themousemaster]

We know these things because... we drink, and we know things. Seriously, though, we have just been around so long and these sorts of questions are so frequent (because of the obtuse nature of the game) that we've just had to revisit the same questions over and over again that it became second nature for the response. I think some of us have a template for this at this point.

I can't wait for the next time I have to explain how various forms of AA work ;p

 

[GarfunkeL]

Never, ever use Strategic Redeployment unless you have 3-6 months of time to wait for the supply systems to recover. Even moving entire Army Groups is better done by just marching them into a single province and then spreading them out from there, instead of using SR. That's how badly it messes the supply system.

And yes, stacking penalties always calculate the total units (ships, planes, divisions) in a province, regardless of how they are organized - but remember that command limit (and above-command limit penalty) is separate from stacking penalty.

Engineers are also often over-valued. The bonuses they give are fairly small when compared to the additional firepower of artillery. Yes, it can be useful to have single special army corps for assaulting cities across a river, but most of your divisions are better off with a firepower-focused brigade instead of engineers.

 

[Kovax]

Engineers are also often over-valued. The bonuses they give are fairly small when compared to the additional firepower of artillery. Yes, it can be useful to have single special army corps for assaulting cities across a river, but most of your divisions are better off with a firepower-focused brigade instead of engineers.

The difference in attack strength while assaulting a forested province can be significant. Two divisions were used to simultaneously attack a forest province in France, one of them 3xINF+ART and the other 2xINF+ART+ENG, both with skill 3 generals. The ENG division had about a 15-20% higher attack value. Thanks to the presence of Forests, Rivers, Urban centers, Fortifications, Swamps, and a few other unusual terrain types throughout the map, it can be very helpful to have an ENG division on hand when the situation calls for it.

The problem is, their base attack value is only a fraction of what another INF or ART brigade will bring to the table, so you only want a few of them in places where their bonuses will make enough of a difference for the rest of the division to offset that lower base value. Typically however, a small country can't afford the Leadership to research them and the appropriate Special Forces doctrines needed to make them effective. For GER, US, UK, and possibly the SU, they can be quite useful in the right circumstances, and you've got enough total units that you can afford to pick and choose which ones to use where. I can't picture GER assaulting the Maginot Line without them. With them, I can be in Paris through either the Maginot Line or Netherlands/Belgium in roughly the same amount of time versus the AI.

 

[Poopfaust]

How come no one mentioned the extra HARDNESS that ARM has over LARM? In HOI 4, HARDNESS is a big deal. I assume the math for HARDNESS in HOI 3 is the same as it is in HOI 4?

 

[roverS3]

How come no one mentioned the extra HARDNESS that ARM has over LARM? In HOI 4, HARDNESS is a big deal. I assume the math for HARDNESS in HOI 3 is the same as it is in HOI 4?

I don't know how hardness works in hoi4 so I can't comment on that, but in Hoi3 hardness (actually 'softness') determines how much damage you take from soft attack vs hard attack. However, since TFH this is cumulated with the effect of piercing attack vs armour, which is now a more important metric for armoured vehicles and AT units. There's also a toughness vs defensiveness element which doesn't work entirely as intended, and which is also somewhat superseded by the piercing attack - armour dynamic in the case of armoured units. Before TFH combined arms units were Divisions with an average softness between 33% and 66%, so you could make some rather exotic combinations and still get the combined arms bonus. Now, to get a combined arms bonus you need some kind of Infantry as a core, and at least 1 other type of brigade. The more different types of brigades the better. You get the highest bonus with something like: Arm, Mot, AC, SP Art, TD which has armour, infantry, and a support brigade from all three families of support brigades (direct fire, indirect fire, and Eng/AC). Of course, the combined arms bonus isn't the end all be all of your division as loads of other factors enter into the equation. For example: You need a special doctrine to get 5 brigades per Division. Eng/AC aren't very strong in themselves and if you don't need to navigate difficult terrain, and don't need high speed, it might be more advantageous replace that brigade with more Infantry (in a defensive role), or more Artillery (in an offensive role). If your enemy doesn't have tanks, it doesn't make much sense to build direct-fire units in most cases. etc.
This complexity actually makes it so that quite a few unit compositions are viable, and what is optimal depends on the situation, your playstyle, etc.

 

[Poopfaust]

in HOI 4 (no idea in HOI 3), Piercing is not related to hardness, it is related to armor.., I think the HOI 3 and 4 mechanic are similar for armor. In HOI 4 Hardness had to do with providing a big decrement for incoming Soft Attacks and taking the full brunt of hard. And vice versa for Soft in that it has a big decrement for Hard and the full effect of Soft. I am not a good writer, but in HOI 4 Hardness was a massive "plus" because most incoming fire was Soft. Anyway, just thought I would throw that out there, I do not want to re-muddy the muddy waters in this area. Thanks.