Hearts Of Iron: Take Three.

[misterbean]

Looks fine to me.

Thank you.

I rather deal with more armies but of smaller size ; it gives more flexibility in the long run.

Otherwise, it looks fine and well balanced (good ratio inf./arm. in the different sectors. I'm curious to see your battle plan.
Did you have an idea of what the OpFor looks like ?

While I tend to agree with your assessment of more armies giving more flexibility, this is a reasonable OOB for a beginning player. More armies also mean more things to remember. I have incorporated the notion that I might need more tactical flexibility in several places, most notably in the lynchpin area between Mitte and Süd.

As for the OpFor, I really don't know. I have resisted having a peek at the Soviet forces. I know from experience that my forces are sufficient for a successful completion, while also keeping enough MP in the pool and plenty of troops in the West, just in case the British try to be clever, provided you play manually. I have not tried it with AI control (don't trust the AI, TBH)

 

[misterbean]

Opposing Forces seem a little...low...for the Soviets in '41, or am I imagining things? Take a look:

No Harm (not even in production) strikes me as odd. Low numbers of Arm. Add to that the unexpectedly light resistance in France. Did the AI fall asleep or something? What do the other experts think? I am also going to post this in the Quick Questions thread to be sure everything is ok. I didn't look at OOB or position of anything; just went straight to this page of the ledger.

 

[Nicegil]

While I tend to agree with your assessment of more armies giving more flexibility, this is a reasonable OOB for a beginning player. More armies also mean more things to remember. I have incorporated the notion that I might need more tactical flexibility in several places, most notably in the lynchpin area between Mitte and Süd.

Sorry... My mistake. I was carried away with my enthousiasm... or operational view. I'm appealing to the Court for clemency.
I sincerely agree with you that this OoB is both simple AND efficient : I was just asking myself how you're going to use your ONE infantry army of the Heeresgruppe 'Mitte' as it has to support TWO Panzerarmies.

 

[Nicegil]

Surprizing is the very low number of Art. too !
Still, you're going to deal with (roughly) 160 IDs (over one-third with AT) and 30 mot.Arm. Div. A lot of work in perspective : you'd better not to sc... up with your encirclements within the first weeks.

 

[misterbean]

Surprizing is the very low number of Art. too !
Still, you're going to deal with (roughly) 160 IDs (over one-third with AT) and 30 mot.Arm. Div. A lot of work in perspective : you'd better not to sc... up with your encirclements within the first weeks.

Yeah, they are really very weird numbers. Like I said, by 5/6/1941, the SU generally has at least some Harm on the board and more in production. This time nada. Not on the board. Not in production. A little concerned I might not be able to give an adequate representation of the usual way I do things.

 

[Nicegil]

You can still create some of them and quickly copy/paste them in your current text file... provided they've got the tech H-Arm otherwise, you'll have to modify this first.

 

[misterbean]

Tech-wise they are doing ok in army weaponry. A little behind in plane techs. They have Harm tech researched. A rough box-select of their western forces from the Baltic to the Black Sea count 158 divisions, HQs not included. So I'm probably overreacting. Fun fact: they are almost completely up-to-date too (upgrade IC ~ 36). I might add half a dozen Harm or so to their production and prioritize those. After all, KV-1 was only just coming out in '41, I believe.

 

[Nicegil]

The Soviets had 141 KV-1 ready in 1940 already and 1121 have been produced in 1941. Considering one-third being built before June 22nd, it will give an approximate number of 500 vehicles combat-ready.
So yes, 5 or 6 HArm rgt would do the trick but it would be better if they were already on the field (simply modify their completion number in txt.file)

 

[misterbean]

The Soviets had 141 KV-1 ready in 1940 already and 1121 have been produced in 1941. Considering one-third being built before June 22nd, it will give an approximate number of 500 vehicles combat-ready.
So yes, 5 or 6 HArm rgt would do the trick but it would be better if they were already on the field (simply modify their completion number in txt.file)

Thanks. I'll do that. Do you know in what Front they served, or were they in the STAVKA reserves?

 

[Nicegil]

1 btn per division (except 8. arm which had 2 btn)

2. armored div
5. armored div, both within the 11. Army (Baltic military district)

4. armored div
7. armored div, both within the 10. Army (Western military district)

8. armored div
32. armored div, both within the 6. Army (Kiev military district)
15. armored div, within 12. Army (Kiev military district)

3. armored div (Leningrad military district)

Edit : Forgot 10. armored div (Kiev military district)
We've got roughly the 500 vehicles ; another 200 KV-2 can be added too.
Bottom line, ca. 9 HArm rgt, 1 per said divisions

 

[misterbean]

Thank you.

 

[KyrionMyrthar]

Those are weird numbers, you're right.

In my own odd game, which kicked off in Russia with them attacking me in November of '42, I forced them to surrender on May 10th, '43. I was surprised by the amount of LARM in their divisions. Very few HARM - maybe 6-8 units, from what I could ascertain, and regular ARM was middling. I'll tell you this - being forced to invade at the beginning of winter is extremely painful.

Probably going to end that one and come up with an East-First game to see how that plays out. Feels like it would be a challenge.

 

[misterbean]

Those are weird numbers, you're right.

In my own odd game, which kicked off in Russia with them attacking me in November of '42, I forced them to surrender on May 10th, '43. I was surprised by the amount of LARM in their divisions. Very few HARM - maybe 6-8 units, from what I could ascertain, and regular ARM was middling. I'll tell you this - being forced to invade at the beginning of winter is extremely painful.

Probably going to end that one and come up with an East-First game to see how that plays out. Feels like it would be a challenge.

Apparently, the two major challenges are completely switching your build for a spring '40 Barbarossa and the fact that France will survive intact on a full war-footing for at least 1 more year.
Then again, in 1940, the Soviets are a lot less powerful. Just don't go for the M/R pact.

 

[KyrionMyrthar]

I figure you'll be facing a lot of awful commanders, if a division has any commander at all. Their armor will be weak, although yours won't be so hot, either.

Part of me wonders if you should strike in Sept. '39, since you already have troops in Poland.

 

[Forster]

Another interesting update, MrB. How often have you seen that influence fail because of an event where Yugoslavia flips as happened in rl? Is there even a chance of that occurring? I have always plotted the demise of Yugoslavia rather than chance them joining the allies, so I have never seen it. Of course I have seen Italy decide to be stupid and attack.

 

[misterbean]

I figure you'll be facing a lot of awful commanders, if a division has any commander at all. Their armor will be weak, although yours won't be so hot, either.

Part of me wonders if you should strike in Sept. '39, since you already have troops in Poland.

If you can pull off a sufficient build-up of forces by that time (which, honestly, I doubt), that would be interesting. The sooner they're out, the sooner you can turn westwards. Just remember what that DoW will do for US neutrality. And don't forget Denmark. Last thing you need, is to have the RN in the Baltic at a time like that.

Another interesting update, MrB. How often have you seen that influence fail because of an event where Yugoslavia flips as happened in rl? Is there even a chance of that occurring? I have always plotted the demise of Yugoslavia rather than chance them joining the allies, so I have never seen it. Of course I have seen Italy decide to be stupid and attack.

There is no such event in the unmodded game, so it just takes patience to succeed. Basically, I'm saving MP in return for the Yugo IC.

 

[KyrionMyrthar]

If you can pull off a sufficient build-up of forces by that time (which, honestly, I doubt), that would be interesting. The sooner they're out, the sooner you can turn westwards. Just remember what that DoW will do for US neutrality. And don't forget Denmark. Last thing you need, is to have the RN in the Baltic at a time like that.

Since you're already at war with the UK due to Poland, a quick snatch of Denmark may be in order to stop that exact situation.

I think I'm definitely going to look at the idea - I know I can't be the first to have tried it. I'm thinking divisions of LARM/MOT/MOT/ENG to start, and either swap out or add SPART to them later on. All of those rivers in the Soviet Union are a pain in the ass.

For speed's sake, I might even think of LARM/MOT/ENG, to build more divisions initially, and add in the second MOT later on.

 

[misterbean]

Don't underestimate the speed of Armoured Cars, if you decide to go that way.

 

[Legobas]

First of all. Love your tutorial.

I learned the basics of the game from a friend. However the tips and tricks i have picked up on this thread has been very helpful in improving my game. Your insight into the game is impressive to say the least.

My friend told me the importance of ENG units due to river crossings and fortifications etc. To the point that i include ENG in every division that is motorized. However i feel that putting a slow unit like this along with my armor and motorized divisions slows them down too much. And secondly i feel that building so many ENG is a real drain on my IC.

What is your take on the use and importance of ENG?

 

[misterbean]

First of all. Love your tutorial.

I learned the basics of the game from a friend. However the tips and tricks i have picked up on this thread has been very helpful in improving my game. Your insight into the game is impressive to say the least.

My friend told me the importance of ENG units due to river crossings and fortifications etc. To the point that i include ENG in every division that is motorized. However i feel that putting a slow unit like this along with my armor and motorized divisions slows them down too much. And secondly i feel that building so many ENG is a real drain on my IC.

What is your take on the use and importance of ENG?

They certainly have their uses, there's no denying that. But they also have downsides. On the plus, like your friend said, they are very good for crossing rivers and attacking fortifications. When properly teched up, they give a small bonus in urban and forest or jungle combat.
But they are not combat units. Their firepower is very low and, as a support brigade, their MP is low as well. And they require fuel.

Engineers are much better suited for exploitation than combat. Arm, Harm and Mot break through enemy lines. That's when the Larm comes out to shine. They can be very fast, reaching an enemy province before the enemy can retreat to it. If that enemy has no other way out, he's toast. Key is to make the Larm as fast as possible. It just needs to hold on long enough for the Arm and Mot to show up. There are two ways of doing that.

Larm/Mech/AC/AC: this baby is quite possibly the fastest thing on wheels in the entire game, coming in at 9.7 with 1936 AC tech and everything else at 1940 tech. This thing flies like the wind. River Attack -65%, fort attack -9%. Or you could substitute a Self-Propelled Rocket Artillery for one of the AC. You'd only lose 0.2 speed, and gain 5% Combined Arms bonus, but that would mean 2 extra techs to keep up-to-date.

Larm/Mech/AC/Eng: only comes in at a speed of 8, so it's quite a bit slower, but river attack is only -48%, while river defense is +25% and fort attack is +1%.

It depends on what you need them to do. If the goal is to hold behind a river until reinforcements arrive, the division with the Engineers will be better suited for the job. If the goal is to overrun the enemy and deny them an escape, then the first one does better.

I honestly hardly ever build any, because I prefer firepower over the small amount of extra speed gained under optimal conditions. The extra firepower is always good to have.

edited to add: Larm/Mech/AC/SpRart has -63.5% river attack and lower combat stats than regular Spart, but they are faster, which is what matters for exploit divisions.