Early Mech rush feasible?

[blue emu]

With a moderate focus on building Motorized Divisions and studying Doctrines from the Superior Firepower branch, it's entirely possible for Germany... and probably other nations as well... to complete research on (1941) Mechanized Infantry by late 1938.

Does this sound like a sensible and productive use of Leadership?

 

[comsubpac]

i don't know. yes, you can do so and i have done it from time to time but "sensible and productive"? hmm, you can win with a infantry only army much easier and maybe even faster. producing mechs and upgrading the mot divisions will eat up all your IC you could better use for other things.
it more a question of style though.

 

[blue emu]

It's more of a long-term idea... to only build a handful Panzer Corps, use them in Poland and France (and possibly in Spain as well), and then leave them in the West to guard our conquests while our Barbarossa "Panzer Corps" are built around MECx2/TDx2 instead of Armor. Any existing Motorized Corps could be upgraded directly to Mech.

That would give us a very fast unit (assuming that I subsequently tech-up only the Engine and Reliability of Medium Armor research, not the Gun and Armor) which draws only about half as much Supply and Fuel as a regular Armored Division, while still having comparable stats and a Softness (just) below 50%, thus qualifying not only for Combined Arms but also for the +20% Hard-on-Soft modifier.

 

[comsubpac]

the problem might be the size of the fronts though. you wont get a problem in the beginning but getting together a army big enough to cover the entire eastern front and some "side projects" might be problematic.
the real problem would begin once you get farther east: you would run out of supplies and especially fuel. i don't even want to imagine what happens when you try to invade someone...
you would certainly still win but compared to a more conservative approach it might be one of the more annoying and very hard to micro manage approaches.

 

[blue emu]

I wasn't looking at them as a replacement for Infantry... they are intended as a replacement for Armor, which should REDUCE the Supply problems, not aggrevate them, since MEC draw far less Supply and Fuel than Armor while offering very similar combat stats (and in many cases, better terrain modifiers).

 

[comsubpac]

I wasn't looking at them as a replacement for Infantry... they are intended as a replacement for Armor, which should REDUCE the Supply problems, not aggrevate them, since MEC draw far less Supply and Fuel than Armor while offering very similar combat stats (and in many cases, better terrain modifiers).

so only a handful of them? certainly that works. i do it all the time. usually i have only a handful of tank divisions and i really wouldn't need those.

 

[blue emu]

so only a handful of them?

Drawing only about half the supply and fuel of an Armored Division, I could build more of them... thus increasing the collective mobility of the Wehrmacht... and still make a modest saving on logistics.

My Army would still be mostly based on Infantry, at least until mid-to-late war, by which time the USSR should be already crushed.

 

[unmerged(234252)]

What would be the consequences of a player who adjusted to you and just made his Armor divisions 100% hard?

 

[blue emu]

What would be the consequences of a player who adjusted to you and just made his Armor divisions 100% hard?

Would that be an advantage? MECx2/TDx2 has roughly balanced SA vs HA. What advantage would a 100% Hard target have, over a 51% Hard target (ie: just high enough to avoid the Hard vs Soft modifier)? Would this advantage (whatever it is) make up for the fact that I can maintain nearly twice as many MECx2/TDx2 Divisions on the same Supply/Fuel/Throughput budget?

 

[Darkart]

I think you're better off building 2ARM 2 SP Art divisions

SP Art > TD - Uses Art research, uses less supply (.4) less, same fuel, is faster than TD.

Maybe the numbers are wrong ('41 from wiki) but Mech = 1.8 sup + 1.6 fuel = 3.4, Arm = 1.6 + 2.0 = 3.6 -.8 (SPARt<TD) = 2.8, So Arm/SpART uses less supply than Mech/TD.


Soft Attack:

2xArm/2xSpArt 13.5 + 10.6 = 24.1 SA.

2xTD/2xMech = 4 + 13.2 = 17.2 SA.

Speed:
Mech/TD = ~7
Arm/SpART = ~7.5

Leadership requirements for Arm/SpArt is obviously much smaller.
Both setups get Armor on Soft, and take about the same IC, unless my numbers are off (depending on version/mod) in multiplayer I have always gone 2Arm/2SPart with good results.

 

[blue emu]

I get rather different numbers in-game.

It's now January 1939. With 1938 techs in Infantry and Armor (except for 1936 techs in Medium Tank Gun and Armor), I get:

Mech (MECx2/TDx2):
Soft Attack 15
Hard Attack 16 (total 31)
Defensiveness 21
Toughness 23 (total 44)
Softness 51 (but this will drop below 50 with the 1940 Light Tank Armor tech)
Speed 7
Air Defense 4
Supply Consumption 4.66
Fuel Consumption 6.90 (total logistical load 11.56)
Men 8,000
ORG 40 (which will improve once I've finished the 1939 MEC ORG tech)
ICs : 17.8
Days : 202 (but both cost and time will be sharply reduced once I've built a dozen or more of them)

Armor (ARMx2/SPAx2) :
Soft Attack 18
Hard Attack 10 (total 28)
Defensiveness 17
Toughness 25 (total 42)
Softness 45
Speed 7
Air Defense 3
Supply Consumption 5.32
Fuel Consumption 9.10 (total logistical load 14.42)
Men 8,000
ORG 42
ICs 17.44
Days 165 (but I've already built twelve ARM and six SPArt, unlike my zero-gearing MECH)

... so it looks like the Mech have roughly equal total firepower but more equally balanced (so my opponent's Softness/Hardness plays no role in combat), roughly equal total defense (but again, well balanced between Defensiveness and Toughness, so the unit can play either role in combat with equal success), 33% better Air Defense, equal speed, and 20% lower logistical load... I had actually expected it to be even lower, but it's still a saving over Armor.

Note that once I gear up my MECH production, they should be no more expensive... and perhaps cheaper... than ARM/SPA.

EDIT: Another point to bear in mind...

Since the main limit on the scope of Operation Barbarossa is not how many forces you can build, but how many you can supply deep in Russia, the key question is not whether a MECx2/TDx2 is better or worse than an ARMx2/SPArtx2... it's whether FIVE MECx2/TDx2 are better or worse than FOUR ARMx2/SPArtx2.

And since BWA (Battle-Winning Ability) is proportional to the SQUARES of the number of forces available (all other things being equal), the ratio to bear in mind is not 5-to-4, it's 25-to-16.

 

[Laurwin]

do all the strategic bonuses work nowadays in FTM? The natural rubber bonus for mobile unit speed, presumably the natural rubber also acts as some kind of horse steroids boosting cavalry speed, as well as some kind of engine boosting substance in tracked APCs

Sometimes you just get unlucky in this game, you would really like to have good ministers as USA for example, but political scandal happens and sudenly your stuck with general McArthurt the mobile practical guy.

But on the flip side, it does seem like mechanized are much more research intensive than armour, and infantry. Most countries have existing infantry, and a serious need for that infantry in some way or the other, and you need to have artillery doctrine.

But with USA, UK you get the capitalistically awesome Ford Motor Company factories in Detroit so you get cheap armors anyhow.

 

[Secret Master]

Your original question, if I read it right, is whether spending the leadership to overcome the ahead of time penalty for MECH is sensible.

I've done it before, and it was very satisfying. Hell, I even did it as France once. Considering the power of MECH and the other advantages you listed, I don't see why the leadership cost is not worth it. Yeah, it's expensive, but laying down the required number of MOT/TD divisions early means that when you finally get the tech, you are upgrading, not building from scratch AND you already have some practicals.

If you are skipping ARM divisions, then you have the spare IC to do this. However, if you are also skipping LARM, then the tech levels for your engine techs will be lower because you lack the right practicals to speed them up. Still doable, but those other techs will be more difficult to attain (I'm assuming you want more engine techs, even if you are skipping armor for speed).

I'd advise building the MOT early, but set them all to no upgrades so that when MECH hits, you just throw them back in the queue and they get all the new small arms and other techs while they mutate into MECH.

 

[Alex_brunius]

I get rather different numbers in-game.

It's now January 1939. With 1938 techs in Infantry and Armor (except for 1936 techs in Medium Tank Gun and Armor), I get:

Mech (MECx2/TDx2):
Soft Attack 15
Hard Attack 16 (total 31)

...

Armor (ARMx2/SPAx2) :
Soft Attack 18
Hard Attack 10 (total 28)

What you need to take into account is also the effect in soft attack that can be reached by rushing Medium Tank Gun and Artillery Gun techs.

If you have 1940 tech for Tank Gun then that would equal +4 SA and +4 HA for (ARMx2/SPAx2)
If you have 1-2 techs ahead in Artillery gun then that would equal +1.2 - 2.4 SA additionally.

It should be possible to get the division to 24.2 Soft Attack without much effort, landing in at 61% above Mech, with Mech having no chance to catch up through research (gaining only 0.9 + 0 per year while ARM/SPArt gains 1.0 + 0.6).

In the long run MEC will also always be more expensive then armor, due to having more techs affecting it.


What you are doing in essence, is trading a bit of soft attack for speed and less supply/fuel drain.

 

[blue emu]

Yeah, I reasonably happy with the Nazi Mech Rush idea. I'd do it a bit differently next time. As you point out, pre-building all the MOT/TD units would save me from a real IC-day log-jam in early 1939. I nearly didn't have enough spare IC-days to squeeze in my standard 33 Militia Divisions!

What you are doing in essence, is trading a bit of soft attack for speed and less supply/fuel drain.

The important question, as I say, is whether FIVE of them are a better investment than FOUR Armor... because that`s the ratio that my logistics will be able to support deep in Russia.

If you have 1940 tech for Tank Gun then that would equal +4 SA and +4 HA for (ARMx2/SPAx2)

Medium Armor Gun tech is only +1 HA and +1 SA per two years. It would take end-game techs to give that +4 you mention.

tank_gun = {
armor_brigade = {
soft_attack = 1.0
hard_attack = 1.0
toughness = -0.5
maximum_speed = -0.25
}

allow = {
tank_brigade = 1
}

research_bonus_from = {
automotive_theory = 0.3
artillery_practical = 0.6
armour_practical = 0.1
}

on_completion = automotive_theory

difficulty = 2

#common for all techs.
start_year = 1936
first_offset = 1938 #2nd model is from 1936
additional_offset = 2 #one new every 2 years
folder = armour_folder
}

 

[Alex_brunius]

Against infantry and soft targets thats easy to answer.

ARM+SPArt will easilly beat 20% more MEC, especially in the long run since they gain almost twice the soft attack from technology!

Against harder targets I suspect the TDs will put MEC divisions ahead, especially with rushed AT techs.


Id preffer to spend my leadership on building 2ARM+2SPArt+TD or just build 3ARM+2SPArt instead if I worry about that enemy hard units though.

Medium Armor Gun tech is only +1 HA and +1 SA per two years. It would take end-game techs to give that +4 you mention.

The +4 I mention was for both armor brigades (ARMx2), so it's just 2 techs ahead.

Each research level should give the Armor division in total +3.2 SA and the Mech division +1.8 SA (IIRC)

 

[JoeRambo]

In one of my games I did exactly this strategy - with a twist of getting MEC even earlier by using some clever tricks with unit upgrades (variuos combos of INF->MOT MOT->MECH INF->MECH). I ended up with real potent mobile force. The real problem? Well Alex pretty much outlined it, SPA is so ridiculously overpowered that no matter what unit and in what clever way you build, you end up with a fact that 2xARM+2SPA is the most powerful (in a performance way, not actual combat stats) 4bde unit in this game ( CA, hard on soft, solid level of hardness - combined with the mass of 100% softness units in a game ).

On research: using reasonable year of 1944 techs - ARM and MEC have ~same level of SA, it's the SPA, that has ~same that distorts things.

P.S. Am i getting this right, but blue emu seems to have FTM now? That's definitely good news for those looking for a weighted and a bit twisted opinion about unit builds and strategies welcome on board!

 

[unmerged(426935)]

This strategy sounds sick and twisted...I'M GONNA DO IT TOO!

 

[Secret Master]

This strategy sounds sick and twisted...I'M GONNA DO IT TOO!

I conquered Germany with it one time... As France. We were eating cheese in Berlin after 2 years (would have been sooner, but the Brits conducted Operation "Overlord into the waiting jaws of death in Kiel" a few times, pissing away their forces ).

 

[blue emu]

P.S. Am i getting this right, but blue emu seems to have FTM now? That's definitely good news for those looking for a weighted and a bit twisted opinion about unit builds and strategies welcome on board!

Correct... forum member Dieselboater gave me a copy.