Hearts of IronIII: Their Finest Hour. Dev diary 2. Combat Tactics and Armour/Piercing

[1alexey]

My AT moves at 20km/h when they are strategically redeployed, try to beat that with any armor

Yeah, and wait 72 hours till you can do something.

Also remind me why should a minor be able to defeat a major again? (You seem to try to argue that they should).

Maybe you need to read again?

The point is that AT should defeat armor when used in large enough amount, this they already do so things can only become better in favour of AT by giving them high piercing values.

The problem is your army is better of never building any AT brigade.

Can't you use strategic redeployment for that? You can get anywhere quickly that way. Micromanaging ATs is painful, but last time I tried it, it could be done. You don't need to use ATs in all your divs, but 2 corps of INFs with ATs (2xINF+1xAT+1xART) is sth and maybe turn some of your 2xINF+2xART into 2xINF+1xART+1xAT. Moreover, you can put ATs in places where the enemy is most likely to try to make a breakthrough, thus forcing him to either face ATs or attack in unfavourable conditions. TDs cost more than ATs (ICdays, LP), they require fuel and have to combined with other fuel-consuming units because of speed, so it's not that you are getting the increased mobility for free. Still, this will have to be tested in MP, anyway.

Attack delay cripples STR redeployment.

Again, on paper, AT looks usefull. In real situation, it is not. Why? Read the above 2 pages.

But the division with AT doesn´t need do beat the armored division 1vs1. All it needs to do is stall it. It´s simple, if it gets bogged down fighting well entrenched infantry in good terrain it buys time both for aircraft to pound it, and for armored divisions to reinforce the position OR even better - flank it. You can´t fix balancing if you think of everything as 1vs1 engagement. The classical example is 4 heavy armor division, for the price of that one I can build a 2 INF 2 AT + one standard armored division and while the heavy whacks at the infantry, I encircle and cut off your heavy armor division.

Wait, so now I`m thinking in 1v1 engagements? All my explainations about manuvering troops around the front are for nothing,
or the mentioned 1 time 4 HARM division is such a red tape that everyone can only see it, and nothing else?

A "typical" HOI3 breakthugh lasts about 4-12 hours, the defenders are overwhelmed more than 2-3 times, and the time it takes to breakthrugh is only limited by the ORG the defender has. Also, the AT brigade only gives the hard on soft damage canselation to the division that has it.

If you look at the tactical analysis I´ve posted before AA brigades were far from not being active and doing only AA role. Light AA was pretty hard to dislodge and heavy AA (88) was actively used by the germans to attack fortified positions, bunkers etc besides the obvious defensive role. I´d rather see a buff to standard AA than to to rely on brigades of mobile AA that are even more ahistorical, considering few AA vehicles were built in huge numbers - IIRC Wirbel and Ostwind only appeared in 1944 and no more than 200 of each were built. Hardly justifies even 3 brigades, let alone 10. Not to mention all other countries which simply didn´t use those.

So why would you even call it AA brigade, if it`s primery purpose is ground fighting?

Oh, and every armoured division of germany and USSR had mobile AA. Just not armoured.

 

[unmerged(200905)]

cavalry divisions used horses at least in germany. some motorised and mechanized formations did stand in the tradition of the cavalry and used cavalry names but they were not cavalry.
for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_Cavalry_Division_(Wehrmacht)

maybe early war and later for cerimonial duties but most cavalry , certainly as far as the allies where concerned where up dated to semi- mechanized divisions at the very least .
horses and mules had there uses in difficult terrain as supply carriers but as front line units , noway ,

 

[Alex_brunius]

Yeah, and wait 72 hours till you can do something

Or wait 0 hours since they are redeployed in the path of advancing units and enters combat instantly?

The problem is your army is better of never building any AT brigade.

Why would building Infantry and Artillery instead be better against those 4xHARM divisions you speak about?

 

[comsubpac]

maybe early war and later for cerimonial duties but most cavalry , certain as far as the allies where conscerned where up dated to semi- mechanized divisions at the very least .
horses and mules had there uses in difficult terrain as supply carriers but as front line units , noway ,

nope, all the time cavalry is only real cavalry when it uses horses and they did use horses and did fight in the front line (most of the time behind it though). just because it has a cavalry related name it doesn't mean its cavalry. the Kavalerie-Schützen-Regimenter weren't considered cavalry either. they were motorised.
the allies simply didn't have real cavalry. they had motorised/mechanized units originating in cavalry though.
one is a branch of the armed forces the other is just a name. completely different things. the unit type is important ingame: cavalry is cavalry and rides on horses and motorised is motorised using trucks.

 

[Cybvep]

I always thought of in-game cavalry as infantry which rides to battle on horses, but fights dismounted. Mechanisation etc. is represented by upgrades, I guess.

 

[unmerged(200905)]

nope, all the time cavalry is only real cavalry when it uses horses and they did use horses and did fight in the front line (most of the time behind it though). just because it has a cavalry related name it doesn't mean its cavalry. the Kavalerie-Schützen-Regimenter weren't considered cavalry either. they were motorised.
the allies simply didn't have real cavalry. they had motorised/mechanized units originating in cavalry though.
one is a branch of the armed forces the other is just a name. completely different things. the unit type is important ingame: cavalry is cavalry and rides on horses and motorised is motorised using trucks.

well id argue that the game should reflect the evolution of horse devisions into semi mechanized divisions in game , but i guess that is a debate for another thread

 

[Cybvep]

I think that HOI2 did that and I'm certain that DH has semi-motorised cavalry. In HOI3, this could be represented by an additional tech, but you can already upgrade your CAVs into MOTs or MECs and IIRC they use Motorised Practical, so you can hardly complain, as breeding horses didn't really help to produce trucks IRL.

 

[unmerged(200905)]

I always thought of in-game cavalry as infantry which rides to battle on horses, but fights dismounted. Mechanisation etc. is represented by upgrades, I guess.

thats how they did fight mate in 1939 poland , but if nothing else the polish experiance showed both the germans and allies that cavalry where hopelessly obsolete

 

[Cybvep]

You are probably thinking about mythical cavalry charges on tanks. In reality they only happened when there was no choice but to fight your own way out of the encirclement or were a result of failed reconnaissance, but obviously cavalry couldn't replace tanks, as it was just more mobile infantry. Army mechanisation was expensive, not everybody could afford it even due to fuel requirements alone. Cavalry was still a better choice than foot infantry as far as manoeuvring was concerned.

 

[unmerged(200905)]

You are probably thinking about mythical cavalry charges on tanks. In reality they only happened when there was no choice but to fight your own way out of the encirclement or were a result of failed reconnaissance, but obviously cavalry couldn't replace tanks, as it was just more mobile infantry. Army mechanisation was expensive, not everybody could afford it even due to fuel requirements alone.

not really thinking about mythical cavalry charages with sabers against tanks lol =p
all im saying is cavalry evolved to using halftracks , armoured cars and occasionally light tanks as the war progressed and the game does not reflect that in the tech tree , ofc everyone who is pointed out you can upgrade is correct =p

 

[comsubpac]

thats how they did fight mate in 1939 poland , but if nothing else the polish experiance showed both the germans and allies that cavalry where hopelessly obsolete

thats just a myth. actually it was encircled polish cavalry successfully breaking through the german infantry lines. they were then ambushed by german tanks just arriving. the polish cavalry did of course never intentionally charge into tanks. the were desperate but not stupid.
every german division had cavalry for reconnaissance and in 1939 germany still had one cavalry brigade. classical cavalry divisions/brigades completely horses only became useful against russia especially behind the front line but also as part of it.
originally the light divisions were supposed to take over the role of the cavalry but that didn't work and they were reformed into tank divisions.

 

[unmerged(200905)]

thats just a myth. actually it was encircled polish cavalry successfully breaking through the german infantry lines. they were then ambushed by german tanks just arriving. the polish cavalry did of course never intentionally charge into tanks. the were desperate but not stupid.

did you bother reading the previous posts before you wrote that mate ?

 

[comsubpac]

did you bother reading the previous posts before you wrote that mate ?

i can't read what didn't exist.

 

[unmerged(200905)]

i can't read what didn't exist.

im not a moderator mate i cant shift , delete or change a posts position

 

[1alexey]

Or wait 0 hours since they are redeployed in the path of advancing units and enters combat instantly?

By the time you redeploy a few provinces, combat shouldalready finish. Ph, and last time i checked redeploying can screw your supply line, and still be quite slow, if the logistic in that place is overloaded with supplies.

Why would building Infantry and Artillery instead be better against those 4xHARM divisions you speak about?

For minor? If you build AT, you will not be capable of holding Infantry of the major, and they wouldn`t have to use tanks, like at all.

 

[Jazumir]

It has already been said by someone else. The purpose of immobile AT is to force the Arm to attack where it normally wouldnt. Say, you got a six tile front you expect an enemy attack to come through. Two of these tiles are clear terrain, one is urban, two are woods, and one is mountain. Guess i dont have to tell you, where you should deploy the AT to make it useful, even if it doesnt fire a shot in the event.

 

[Beagá]

Pretty much so. It´s all a matter of balancing values to achieve the desired result (that is, guarantee one well entrenched division with 1 or 2 AT gun won´t be overrun in a day by one armored division, or if it does it inflict costly casualties in the process - in the meantime buying time for counterattack).

Also the steam-rolling of SU has a lot to do with that bloody annoying decision. 6 months of spanking is not nice and totally screws the finely tuned balance of unit values. I´ve brought the subject before, why Paradox doesn´t try to balance the outcome using organic values instead of the magic bullet? People say a lot about game being historical or not -so why it´s always forced on the player the same situation of SU being totally unprepared? And even if it allows the situation, aren´t the bonuses Germany gets too excessive?

 

[1alexey]

It has already been said by someone else. The purpose of immobile AT is to force the Arm to attack where it normally wouldnt. Say, you got a six tile front you expect an enemy attack to come through. Two of these tiles are clear terrain, one is urban, two are woods, and one is mountain. Guess i dont have to tell you, where you should deploy the AT to make it useful, even if it doesnt fire a shot in the event.

Yeah, because the place where you will deploy it will just get over-runned by enemy infantry.

 

[Beagá]

And if I put a second division of 3 INF and ART in the same province? The point still stands - you have 2 units (ARM + INF) versus 2 of mine, but yours are more expensive and therefore I succesfully made you waste more force and resources than me. And naturally said infantry divisions are on woods not plains.

 

[1alexey]

And if I put a second division of 3 INF and ART in the same province? The point still stands - you have 2 units (ARM + INF) versus 2 of mine, but yours are more expensive and therefore I succesfully made you waste more force and resources than me. And naturally said infantry divisions are on woods not plains.

In the end, of you thoughtfull exercise, you will have the max frontage vs max frontage battle, but if there is AT, INF+ART should over run divisions with AT on planes, and Armour is not used in bad terrain.

and then, when armour enters combat, your AT already has no org.

Or in case of N 2infantry-2artilery divisions +x ARM divisions, the chances of your divisions with AT to choose the Armour are x/x+n, so your AT brigades are basically a dead weight, even if they are, in fact fighting armour.