German Infantry Experiment (2.03c)

[unmerged(47028)]

The First Four Weeks

Infantry Army

Mixed Infantry Army

The Mixed Infantry Army took Amsterdam and Liege. The Infantry Army is still besieging both cities.

 

[unmerged(47028)]

The Second Four Weeks

Infantry Army

Mixed Infantry Army

The Mixed Infantry Army took Belgium and invaded the Northern France. The Infantry Army took Belgium and only about to enter the Northern France.

However, the Mixed Infantry Army lost one division:

 

[Baltasar]

Looks interesting. Did you compare production time with these builts? You ended up with a whole additional army group, which in itself is certainly making a difference. What's the difference in supply consumption?

 

[unmerged(47028)]

The Third Four Weeks

Infantry Army

Mixed Infantry Army

The Infantry Army reached Seine River and breached the Maginot Line. The Mixed Infantry Army crossed Seine River but could not breach the Maginot Line.

 

[unmerged(47028)]

The Fourth Four Weeks

Infantry Army

Mixed Infantry Army

The Infantry Army took reached Loire River and almost destroyed the Maginot Line, but can not take Paris. The Mixed Infantry Army reached Loire River.

 

[SAS]

It will be interesting to see the soviet battles when the divisions go on the defensive. I wonder how the different defensive values will work.

 

[unmerged(47028)]

The Fifth Four Weeks

Infantry Army

Mixed Infantry Army

The Infantry Army took Vichy and Nantes and slowly approaching Brest and Bordeaux, but the Allies landed in Northern France, Belgium and Holland. The Mixed Infantry Army breached the Maginot Line approached Vichy, took Nantes and invaded Brittany, but the Allies landed in Northern France and Belgium.

 

[unmerged(47028)]

The Sixth Four Weeks

Infantry Army

Mixed Infantry Army

The Infantry Army took Brest and almost reached the Mediterranean Sea, but the Allies liberated almost whole the Netherlands. The Mixed Infantry Army took Brest and Vichy, approached Bordeaux, and pushing back the Allies in Northern France and Belgium.

 

[unmerged(47028)]

The Seventh Four Weeks

Infantry Army

On 26 October 1940, France surrendered.

Mixed Infantry Army

On 29 October 1940, France surrendered.

 

[Cybvep]

What about the losses?

 

[unmerged(47028)]

These are Manpower weekly data:

The Infantry Army

Date 	        Week	MP	Reinf	Off%	Gain	Exp MP	MP Loss
10/05/1940	1	266	-3.0	112%	27.2		
17/05/1940	2	267	-4.3	113%	27.3		7
24/05/1940	3	268	-5.0	111%	27.4		6
31/05/1940	4	269	-5.7	109%	27.4		6
07/06/1940	5	270	-6.2	110%	27.4		6
14/06/1940	6	271	-5.2	112%	27.4		4
21/06/1940	7	266	-12.9	113%	27.7		19
28/06/1940	8	253	-9.9	115%	28.5		16
05/07/1940	9	240	-7.9	116%	30.2		18
12/07/1940	10	239	-9.0	117%	31.1		9
19/07/1940	11	233	-12.3	119%	31.5		16
26/07/1940	12	229	-9.5	121%	31.5		8
02/08/1940	13	224	-7.9	122%	32.4		11
09/08/1940	14	216	-18.1	123%	32.8		26
16/08/1940	15	198	-18.3	125%	32.8	8	18
23/08/1940	16	178	-28.8	126%	33.0		38
30/08/1940	17	155	-29.3	125%	33.2	3	28
05/09/1940	18	133	-36.5	126%	36.8		36
12/09/1940	19	107	-20.0	128%	37.4		18
19/09/1940	20	94	-22.1	129%	37.8		24
26/09/1940	21	74	-21.3	131%	38.9	3	25
03/10/1940	22	59	-11.1	133%	38.7		14
10/10/1940	23	49	-15.4	135%	39.3		23
17/10/1940	24	40	-5.6	137%	39.5	5	3
24/10/1940	25	38	-5.1	139%	39.7		11
26/10/1940	26	39	-7.0	139%	36.8		4

Total MP Loss 392
MP loss/d 2.3


The Mixed Infantry Army

Date 	        Week	MP	Reinf	Off%	Gain	Exp MP	MP Loss
10/05/1940	1	239	-1.4	110%	27.2		
17/05/1940	2	239	-5.6	112%	28.3		10
24/05/1940	3	236	-9.7	110%	27.2		14
31/05/1940	4	233	-8.0	108%	27.3		8
07/06/1940	5	228	-7.5	110%	27.5		11
14/06/1940	6	223	-14.4	112%	28.0		18
21/06/1940	7	211	-35.7	112%	29.2		40
28/06/1940	8	199	-38.1	114%	29.2		21
05/07/1940	9	181	-46.7	115%	30.2		33
12/07/1940	10	167	-27.6	116%	31.1		2
19/07/1940	11	149	-32.6	117%	31.9		30
26/07/1940	12	134	-40.1	118%	32.3		30
02/08/1940	13	115	-60.6	119%	32.7		47
09/08/1940	14	95	-51.4	121%	32.7		18
16/08/1940	15	76	-43.3	123%	32.7		18
23/08/1940	16	51	-66.1	123%	35.7		55
30/08/1940	17	25	-42.7	122%	36.4		11
06/09/1940	18	4	-43.7	124%	37.2		30
12/09/1940	19	0	-51.5	125%	37.6		19
19/09/1940	20	782	-53.5	126%	38.3	-800	29
26/09/1940	21	760	-37.7	128%	38.7		15
03/10/1940	22	746	-48.4	129%	39.1		34
10/10/1940	23	727	-39.5	131%	39.5		19
17/10/1940	24	710	-27.6	133%	39.3		14
24/10/1940	25	693	-27.4	134%	39.5		26
29/10/1940	26	683	-30.4	135%	38.3		19

Total MP Loss 572
MP loss/d 3.3

Reinf - MP needed to reinforce all units
Gain - MP monthly gain
Exp MP - MP deducted (production) or added (cheat)
MP Loss - Weekly MP loss

I added 800 MP to the Mixed Infantry Army on 12/09/1940. This is because I built two separate armies in one game and therefore the Mixed Infantry Army started to suffer from lack of reinforcements. I will add 800 MP to the main save game too.

As you can see, it is very obvious, the Mixed Infantry Army suffers much higher casualties even though it is better at the beginning of campaign and taking urban cities.

 

[unmerged(47028)]

IMO Mixed Army will fare better. It's more flexible (more divs), it has more firepower and it's more MP-efficient. The only problem I see is that you waste too much MP early on and it's always good to have a MP-reserve for France and especially the Soviets. You should leave some MP for both armies, build airforce, infrastructure etc.

The Mixed Army was better at responding to the Allies invasion in Belgium and the Netherlands. IMO it was because the army had more divisions.

You are actually right. Even now the Mixed Army wasted all reserves.

BTW you confused the two armies under "Data at the end of the campaign".

Thank you. Amended.

this is interesting - given that lothos' lua force the AI to build in a 2+2 (as opposed to the more historic triangular inf division), it looks like the AI default build is also the most optimal. If so, its good to see that HOI has now captured the killing power of artillery and the general flexibility that comes from specialist brigades.

I fear for your 2+3 model in the USSR but it may work, the problem will be if the combat brigades suffer very high attrition?

After the Poland Campaign I thought the same, but after the France Campaign, I am not sure 2+2 model is efficient in AI hands. It looks like AI suffers higher casualties. In the USSR it could lead to disaster.

very convincing test.

Maybe not anymore

No, this is unfortunately not true. You only get a significant enhancement to your strength if you focus on artillery. The random brigade attachments that the AI does are a disaster. On the average, a 3 Inf Army is a better choice then. Thus, unfortunately, you had two things happening that both unbalanced the game. First, the unit stats made Art greatly OP allowing the human player to make very powerful divisions. And then the new lua forced the AI to build huge amounts of junk. Taken together the impact is very significant.

I think, I have to agree with you.

Looks interesting. Did you compare production time with these builts? You ended up with a whole additional army group, which in itself is certainly making a difference. What's the difference in supply consumption?

The problem is that both armies are in the same file so I cannot really compare supply consumption.

I agree that a whole additional army group is making a difference. I hope it gives more flexibility.

It will be interesting to see the soviet battles when the divisions go on the defensive. I wonder how the different defensive values will work.

I think I will see even more shattered divisions in the Mixed Army.

 

[Cybvep]

This is VERY interesting. IMO it means that 2+2 combination can be very efficient (just look at Polish campaign and the first half of the campaign), but its MP-efficiency is not guaranteed, at least in the AI's hands. The fact that pure INF combination is actually effective is ridiculous. How about performance against armour?

However, we are up to the REAL test during Barbarossa. I suggest to copy a save game and disband the second army in a given test, i.e. INF or MIX one, because of supply drain. The system is wacky, so it's better to be sure. Also, you should run at least two (or more) tests in each case (2xINF + 2xMIX) in order to make the results more accurate and less prone to random factors.

 

[unmerged(35723)]

AI does not know how to properly use armours, nor 2+2s. A player would be concentrating full corps of 2+2s to win battles quickly, mitigating MP losses, whereas AI just pushes and pushes, resulting a far greater MP loss due to arty's poor toughness and STR/MP ratio.

 

[unmerged(47028)]

This is VERY interesting. IMO it means that 2+2 combination can be very efficient (just look at Polish campaign and the first half of the campaign), but its MP-efficiency is not guaranteed, at least in the AI's hands. The fact that pure INF combination is actually effective is ridiculous. How about performance against armour?

However, we are up to the REAL test during Barbarossa. I suggest to copy a save game and disband the second army in a given test, i.e. INF or MIX one, because of supply drain. The system is wacky, so it's better to be sure. Also, you should run at least two (or more) tests in each case (2xINF + 2xMIX) in order to make the results more accurate and less prone to random factors.

I will disband a second army before the Barbarossa and if I will not be lazy I will run a second test.

AI does not know how to properly use armours, nor 2+2s. A player would be concentrating full corps of 2+2s to win battles quickly, mitigating MP losses, whereas AI just pushes and pushes, resulting a far greater MP loss due to arty's poor toughness and STR/MP ratio.

I am not sure this is the case. AI managed a concentrated assault on Belgium and the Netherlands quite well, nevertheless 2+2 suffered higher casualties from the beginning. The thing is Belgium and Holland are full of "bad terrain" and because of that effectiveness of artillery decreases. Poland on the other hand is plain country with only 1 river to cross (if you attack from East Prussia) - perfect for artillery.

Besides, if enemy is strong 2+2 divisions are prone to counter-attack.

 

[jju_57]

This is VERY interesting. IMO it means that 2+2 combination can be very efficient (just look at Polish campaign and the first half of the campaign), but its MP-efficiency is not guaranteed, at least in the AI's hands. The fact that pure INF combination is actually effective is ridiculous. How about performance against armour?

Remember they are really not pure infantry as the infantry has 4 components including light artillery and anti-tank elements.

What I think these tests are confirming is two facts that have been posted before.
1) The AI does much better with lots more divisions.
2) The 3xINF, 1xART is still the strongest divisional makeup for mitigating losses while still abole to deal losses to the enemy.

MNPLASTIC, just to confirm the pure infantry for the French fights were 4xINF. Is this correct?

 

[unmerged(47028)]

MNPLASTIC, just to confirm the pure infantry for the French fights were 4xINF. Is this correct?

It is correct.

 

[misterbean]

2) The 3xINF, 1xART is still the strongest divisional makeup for mitigating losses while still abole to deal losses to the enemy.

I tend to agree. I usually go for this set-up as my standard German infantry division and have never been dissapointed. it seems that for long drawn-out campaigns it is best to err on the side of more combat brigades and less support brigades. with the right techs, you can eventually go for 3xinf/2xart.

 

[loki100]

Remember they are really not pure infantry as the infantry has 4 components including light artillery and anti-tank elements.

What I think these tests are confirming is two facts that have been posted before.
1) The AI does much better with lots more divisions.
2) The 3xINF, 1xART is still the strongest divisional makeup for mitigating losses while still abole to deal losses to the enemy.

agree with this and the value of this AAR. If HOI3 is an effective simulation (& in many ways it is), then the default divisional structure of all the major powers should be the most effective (I don't think it was near universally adopted by armies with as different philosophies as the UK and the USSR by accident). The problem is that lothos seems very unwilling to even consider budging from the 2+2 structure he's put into the lua files. I can see, and to some extent sympathise, with what he's trying to achieve but all its doing is setting up the AI for death by attrition (says he with the Wehrmacht running wild in NW Russia in his latest game).

the other bit that is confirmed again is once the military AI has enough formations (even if those formations are a bit weak), it can be very creative, its when it feels overmatched it seems to become too timid.

 

[wuffer]

Thx for this little experiment.
Honestly it shows a lot about the power of arty, but even more about the AI itself , in particular for its talent of ignoring rivers.
As for adding random support brigades, I'm quite sure that next patch will give the AI some reasonable templates. Or at least tell her not to attach ATs for amphibious landings in Guanxi...

We found the best behave (or the least disastrous ) for the (German) AI was in our little experiments the adding of an all-be-happy modded single supportbrigade, which was including a full arty, half eng., half AT and half AA simulating single battalions (AA and AT could theoretically sharing some of the guns), coming out as a 3 + 1 x (1 + 1/2 + 1/2 + 1/2) structure.

What I really like at HOI is the modding ability. I think to look at all given value just as suggestions, not laws.