Giving INF divisions HARM instead of AT

[incognitus]

I'm wondering, if this might be a good idea. Giving HARM divisions MOT seems to be pointless, since HARM are only marginally faster than INF anyways. Using CAV makes no sense, because they are significantly weaker than INF. But isn't a brigade of HARM added to an INF division kinda like having ART and AT rolled into one? I'm thinking of using HARM/INF/INF/INF or HARM/INF/INF/ART (for more CA bonus)... with Superior Firepower you could even go even go HARM/INF/INF/INF/ART or fill the fifth slot with something that adds another 5% CA bonus.

 

[Kovax]

Adding HARM is definitely a huge boost for the INF brigades, giving them an insanely high Armor value, but doesn't play to the HARM's other key attribute: hardness. If you mix that HARM with MEC, SPART, or even AC, the total Softness of the unit becomes trivial, and any attacker will be forced to use its lower HA value against it, on top of all the "Insufficient Piercing" penalties. You also get a higher Combined Arms bonus with the attached SPART or AC than with yet another infantry-type brigade. While HARM+3xINF is powerful, and rather expensive, HARM+2xMEC+SPART is devastatingly powerful, if you can afford the astronomical cost to build and supply it. It may waste the movement advantages of the MEC and SPART, but there's very little on the map that can hurt it. I'd only use HARM in small numbers anyway (in games where I use it at all), as the cost of attaching it to more than a handful of divisions gets prohibitively expensive, but if you're willing to eat the expense and make do with less of everything else, you could most certainly attach it to your INF.

 

[incognitus]

I think I might try that at some point. Germany is probably the best candidate for that, as they can realistically research HARM earlier than any other country. And I did mean to use in en masse, i.e. have HARM be the standard attachment for INF divisions.
Combining HARM with MEC makes sense, of course, but it would be impossible to supply more than a few divisions like that, right?

Edit: Plus I usually suck so badly at encircling and destroying enemy units, I might as well just forego the very concept and just build divisions that can push the enemy back indefinitely...

 

[Kovax]

It may seem like an odd way to play, but I generally build a lot less armor than most players: typically one Corps of 3-5 Armor and Motorized divisions per Army with 3-4 Corps of 5 Infantry divisions. That's generally around 1-2 ARM divisions, and 1-3 LARM or MOT per Army, and perhaps 8-16 ARM and LARM divisions total for a country like GER. Basically, supply on the Eastern Front is rarely a problem. Many of my most successful encirclements have been almost entirely with Infantry, while the bulk of my Armor was busy elsewhere, or were done with smaller countries that can't even build ARM except via Licensing.

The AI is pretty decent at pulling back units that are in danger of being cut off, so you have to push deeper and take a bigger bite, otherwise the fleeing units will hold the gap open as you fight and break each one in turn, until you're left with an empty pocket (and Manpower pool). That's generally more provinces on the perimeter to hold than I have armor or motorized units, which may (or may not) form the spearhead, but the rest of my pockets' walls will be held by INF. Forget pocketing a division or three, go for 12-20 at a shot, and be prepared to hold that perimeter against simultaneous attacks from both inside and out.

Multiplayer is a different animal, and you have to "min/max" and game the system to compete against the players who are doing exactly that.

As for "instead of AT", I don't put AT in every division, only enough to deal with opposing armor as needed. AT has close to the worst Soft Attack in the game (MPs are worse, and ENG are comparably bad), so it's ONLY useful if you're fighting against tanks. Even then, aside from the Piercing stat, most of the opposing Armor divisions consist of one hard brigade and several softer ones, and your AT is weak against MOST of that Armor division. Another INF or ART might make more sense in most cases, with one or two AT divisions per Corps for when you actually need them. The AI armies are often weak BECAUSE they use so much AT. The main purpose of ARM, in my opinion, is to force the opponent to spend IC, Manpower, and valuable brigade slots on AT, to counter it.

 

[incognitus]

Although I have found that German HARM was clearly superior to my ATs. That was my main motivation. Because I figured that the HARM can replace the AT and the ART at the same time...