How to use support companies effectively?

[Fishy101]

I feel confused about what support companies I should use.

In general I will build a lot of the same kind of divisions. Usually, 7INF/2Art with support. I will stick in a AT or tank if I have those available. But when it comes to support I usually try to put as much in as possible. So if I have 5 researched I will most likely put all 5. If I have a lot of man power I use recon, eng, maint, sig, logistics. If I lack man power I will replace logistics with field hospital. For paratroopers I use recon, eng, support ART, support AT, sig.

I tried to understand what the support companies do. I read the wiki, search the forums, read the tooltips. I still don't really understand how effective signal companies are. But I stick them in because its supposed to help win battles and you get resupplied quicker. Also they require both the radio and motorized to be researched so I figure they must be good.

If I don't have recon that's the first support I research and all my companies have recon. Recon is supposed to allow your commanders to choose better tactics so I figure it is always important. Engineers and signal companies are the 2nd most used.

While typing this, I just thought of something. If recon is supposed to allow your commanders to pick a better tactic. Then does it help more if all the divisions in battle have recon or will it be the same if only 1 division has recon?

 

[Denjell]

Honestly, unless im fighting in africa or some other terriblly supplied area i dont bother with logistics company. Support arty, recon and engineering is what i usually go with, if i wanted more id have to spend more factories producing support equipment, id rather produce more arty or inf eqp to pump out more infantry divisions.

 

[Commander-DK]

I usually put maintenance on any division that has a lot of mechanical or motorised elements - help prevent breakdowns of that expensive equipment

Logistics I like to use for any unit with more artillery than support art. - simply to keep consumption low because artillery swallows relatively a lot of supplies. And I use artillery as Germany to conserve manpower and cut back on infantry battalions.

So that brings me to hospitals. Have not used them yet but as Germany in 1939 in my latest game I ran into manpower problems so I might start adding them to standard infantry template.

Engineers are great for defence for everyone and I use recon for all motorised, armoured and mechanised units.

MP for cavalry to boost suppression.

 

[Wraith11B]

@Pro_Consul had a great post about which support companies should be in which templates. Basically, I think the breakdown was something like:

Support Arty (any type): Only in MTN/MAR/AB where you are looking to keep terrain effects to a minimum.

ENG/Recon/Loggo/Maint/Signal: ARM/MECH/MOT (less so) divisions to keep them pounding and/or breaking through on mobility

MASH: In manpower-strapped countries or countries expecting significant combat engagements

Recon and Signal affect tactic choice and reinforce chance. This is significant in helping your troops stay ahead of their enemies.

 

[Graphic]

I'm not really sure how much of an effect reliability has on a division's effectiveness, but I hate seeing 0.00% Reliability on armored divisions enough that I'll spare the IC for maintenance companies.

 

[Dudas Drakaan]

Personally I rarely use logistics anymore. I did at first - until I realized that the hospitals and maintenance crews effectively nullify most of what attrition can do to you, and they also provide benefits in reducing combat losses as well. Something to note about the field hospital, however, is that it also prevents XP loss when you lose units. That is arguably more important than reducing the manpower loss as Elite troops get a 75% combat bonus to everything. That is a bigger bonus than you'd get anywhere else and so it is a very strong argument to put field hospitals in divisions even when playing the Soviet Union or China.

That said, it's important to know what to prioritize with what faction. The Soviets, China, the Raj, and Brazil would naturally focus on field hospitals last or next to last. Anyone else, I feel, should prioritize hospitals fairly quickly if you don't want to be ground down before the late game. Britain and France should make hospitals one of their first non-industry research items, as they are quite weak on manpower and will probably be in the war for the long haul.

One thing I will say is to not use AA or AT support, as both AA and AT (when positioned in the line) only take 1 width, whereas artillery takes 3 width. Therefore using up a support space for something with stats for 1 width when you could have something with 3 width worth of stats is obviously a bad trade. In fact you might notice, if you compare stats, that support AA and AT have even worse stats than their 1 width counterparts! If you want AT then just add it to the standard line. If you want a lot of punch in your support column then grab both artillery and then rocket artillery for some serious soft attack. Though if you've gotten far enough to be that fancy you probably have already won.

 

[Fishy101]

Thanks for all your responses. It reinforced some of my assumptions and made me rethink some of my choices.

I am playing Guangxi Clique currently and they have over 6 million man power (volunteers only) after going down the fascist national focus tree. Even though its 1945 in my game, I still don't have field hospitals researched. Field hospital was one of the highest priorities when I was playing Yugoslavia. Instead I went with Logistics because I wanted to preserve equipment. Also, the mountains all over China, Central Asia, Southeast Asia, and India has really low supply. Attrition has been my worse enemy so far. Still I am not sure that putting Logistics support companies in is the right decision. I wonder if I couldn't just have managed my armies better and not let them go into those areas. Maybe make some smaller mountaineer divisions to surround and defend against an attack from those mountains instead of trying to take it. I have no idea how the AI does it, but they aren't taking as much attrition as me. At the same time, it might have been a good decision to put Logistics in. I am still undecided.

For my paratroopers, I had to put support ART and AT in them because I couldn't transport them otherwise. And the support AT was critically important because I was using the paratroopers to invade Japan in 1942. At this point in time, I saw that my 7INF2ART infantry were taking penalties fighting Japanese troops invading Korea. Japan had been putting tanks in their infantry divisions. So I had to put support AT on my paratroopers. I also put line AT in all my infantry in the mainland.

After reading a forum thread about AA, I no longer use them. Instead I put more resources towards fighters.

Question about Maintenance company. What impact does it have on Artillery or AT? Its good to have them for artillery and AT right?

 

[Fishy101]

@Pro_Consul had a great post about which support companies should be in which templates. Basically, I think the breakdown was something like:

Support Arty (any type): Only in MTN/MAR/AB where you are looking to keep terrain effects to a minimum.

ENG/Recon/Loggo/Maint/Signal: ARM/MECH/MOT (less so) divisions to keep them pounding and/or breaking through on mobility

MASH: In manpower-strapped countries or countries expecting significant combat engagements

Recon and Signal affect tactic choice and reinforce chance. This is significant in helping your troops stay ahead of their enemies.

Would you mind finding that post? I clicked your link and read some of his posts but couldn't really find it.

 

[Meanmanturbo]

Personally I rarely use logistics anymore. I did at first - until I realized that the hospitals and maintenance crews effectively nullify most of what attrition can do to you, and they also provide benefits in reducing combat losses as well. Something to note about the field hospital, however, is that it also prevents XP loss when you lose units. That is arguably more important than reducing the manpower loss as Elite troops get a 75% combat bonus to everything. That is a bigger bonus than you'd get anywhere else and so it is a very strong argument to put field hospitals in divisions even when playing the Soviet Union or China.

That said, it's important to know what to prioritize with what faction. The Soviets, China, the Raj, and Brazil would naturally focus on it last or next to last. Anyone else, I feel, should prioritize it fairly quickly if you don't want to be ground down before the late game. Britain and France should make it one of their first non-industry research items, as they are quite weak on manpower and will probably be in the war for the long haul.

One thing I will say is to not use AA or AT support, as both AA and AT (when positioned in the line) only take 1 width, whereas artillery takes 3 width. Therefore using up a support space for something with stats for 1 width when you could have something with 3 width worth of stats is obviously a bad trade. In fact you might notice, if you compare stats, that support AA and AT have even worse stats than their 1 width counterparts! If you want AT then just add it to the standard line. If you want a lot of punch in your support column then grab both artillery and then rocket artillery for some serious soft attack. Though if you've gotten far enough to be that fancy you probably have already won.

Well, I you use the 7 inf 2 art you will be over 20 width if you plonk in a line AT or AA. Especially if you go integrated support the extra soft attack for no width of a support ART is nothing to sneer at.

 

[Dudas Drakaan]

Well, I you use the 7 inf 2 art you will be over 20 width if you plonk in a line AT or AA. Especially if you go integrated support the extra soft attack for no width of a support ART is nothing to sneer at.

You can always replace an infantry to get 2 AT if you need the piercing of 6 inf 2 art 2 at - which is a very solid division if you have the IC to make all of that. The whole 7 inf 2 art is hardly set in stone. In fact it is not even advisable if you are a nation with really high man power but really low IC, like the USSR and China. 5 mountaineers, 4 marines, and 2 AT serve really well in a PvP setting since tanks are far more prevalent in multiplayer. AI is too stupid to make medium tanks and they just spam out little infantry divisions, hence the prevalence of the 7&2 arty divisions. Against AI I have never made AT except the first game I ever played.

 

[Dudas Drakaan]

For my paratroopers, I had to put support ART and AT in them because I couldn't transport them otherwise. And the support AT was critically important because I was using the paratroopers to invade Japan in 1942. At this point in time, I saw that my 7INF2ART infantry were taking penalties fighting Japanese troops invading Korea. Japan had been putting tanks in their infantry divisions. So I had to put support AT on my paratroopers.

Yeah the Japanese start with tanks in some of their standard infantry division. They are fairly badly designed, being that they are fast and weak light tanks grouped up with slow foot infantry, but I can see how they would tear up early paratroopers. Once you get the passive infantry AT weapons, though, your standard infantry can penetrate those divisions. I like to take one of the focuses that gives you an infantry weapons' research credit and use it to get that AT ahead of time so my infantry can just deal with it.

Question about Maintenance company. What impact does it have on Artillery or AT? Its good to have them for artillery and AT right?

To see what effect maintenance companies have, just look over the skull icon when your units take attrition. You can do this intentionally by exercising. What you will notice is that it shows you a % reliability next to a % chance each day that the equipment will fail. That's a percent chance for each battalion in that regiment. If you get maintenance companies in your troops, you will increase ALL your equipment reliability and that can be increased beyond 100%, meaning that you will have less than a 0% chance to lose equipment. Meaning your troops are taking attrition but you aren't actually losing anything. Higher attrition means higher damage to your reliability and that's why increasing reliability of tanks, or upgrading your maintenance companies, is important. With max upgrades on maintenance companies I have stood in areas with 60% attrition but had 0% chance to lose equipment. So for Art, AT, tanks, or even infantry equipment, that means you will not have to replace lost equipment except for actual combat losses.

As a side note, if you have maintenance companies in all your units you can exercise them as much as you want and you lose [ALMOST] nothing. [Realized sometime after posting this that it seems you can still lose equipment if your men train in bad weather or if you fail to give them 100% support equipment before you start training them, etc.] For that reason I usually never exercise any of my troops anymore until I have maintenance companies, since gaining experience at no cost is OP.

Addendum: With that said, be cautious of a red skull icon when taking attrition. That means attrition is so bad men are actually dying and you will lose equipment regardless of how high your reliability is when men die. A red skull can also trigger if you move a company of arty, motorized, or tanks into a mountain - where those divisions can have traffic accidents and lose men that way.

 

[fredgiblet]

Well, I you use the 7 inf 2 art you will be over 20 width if you plonk in a line AT or AA. Especially if you go integrated support the extra soft attack for no width of a support ART is nothing to sneer at.

You go go with 6 INF and add one of each AT and AA.

Yeah the Japanese start with tanks in some of their standard infantry division. They are fairly badly designed, being that they are fast and weak light tanks grouped up with slow foot infantry, but I can see how they would tear up early paratroopers. Once you get the passive infantry AT weapons, though, your standard infantry can penetrate those divisions. I like to take one of the focuses that gives you an infantry weapons' research credit and use it to get that AT ahead of time so my infantry can just deal with it.

Japan's divisions are a horrid mess.

As a side note, if you have maintenance companies in all your units you can exercise them as much as you want and you lose nothing. For that reason I usually never exercise any of my troops anymore until I have maintenance companies, since gaining experience at no cost is OP.

...

Ooooooooooo

I may have an idea for my next game.

 

[nicae]

...

Great tips! Thanks!

 

[Fishy101]

You can always replace an infantry to get 2 AT if you need the piercing of 6 inf 2 art 2 at - which is a very solid division if you have the IC to make all of that. The whole 7 inf 2 art is hardly set in stone. In fact it is not even advisable if you are a nation with really high man power but really low IC, like the USSR and China. 5 mountaineers, 4 marines, and 2 AT serve really well in a PvP setting since tanks are far more prevalent in multiplayer. AI is too stupid to make medium tanks and they just spam out little infantry divisions, hence the prevalence of the 7&2 arty divisions. Against AI I have never made AT except the first game I ever played.

Thanks for all the info! A couple of questions.

What would be optimal for a high man power nation to make?

What is the meaning of mixing mountaineers with marines in the 5Mount/4marine/2AT division? Or do you mean 5Mount/2AT and 4 Marine/2AT?

 

[Beagá]

Japan's divisions are a horrid mess.
.

Rubbish, they really aren´t. I finished China in 9 months using the infantry template that doesn´t have tank and the motorized. Didn´t even have to use mountaineers.

For support brigades, hospital and support artillery for everyone, military police for garrisons of partisan infested areas, and all the rest is situational.

What is the meaning of mixing mountaineers with marines in the 5Mount/4marine/2AT division? Or do you mean 5Mount/2AT and 4 Marine/2AT?

There is no need for AT for almost any country. Medium tanks do all the work and kill infantry too. Complete waste of research slot.

 

[Commissar Yossarian]

While most people have a hard on for re-enforcement rate its functionally useless if you're willing to pay even a remote amoutn of attention to your troops in combat.
Signal companies are completely useless on this basis. Research Radios and take any passive bonus you get with your doctorines. The re-enforce check is done every hour so even at 7% after radios you're looking at 10-18 hours to re-enforce with a new division joining the combat. If you're troops are breaking faster than that you're screwed for other reasons anyways and its time to capitualate.

Recon is amazing and must go into every division.
Engineers: Good for their terrain bonuses, but not worth upgrading unless you have a free research slot with nothing else to research. This should be fixed with later game updates, but the defensive bonus is not worth upgrading right now unless you're planning on playing a very defensive game.
AT: As mentioned above it's currently a joke. TD's are vastly supperior in every metric and not using AT saves you tonnes of research.
Art/RArt: Good for special forces that shouldn't have support from line units. Typically small divisions only. Otherwise stick to using line units. SP guns hit so much harder, and give a nice divisional hardness bonus.
AA: Somehow worse than AT. Literally zero reason to ever produce AA units at all in the game.
Maintenance: Must have in Armoured/Mech divisions. Attrition otherwise shouldn't be an issue.
Logistics: Must have in every division in the game. This is often overlooked as people envision it for base behaviour, but in realitiy it is mostly critical in achieving good breakthrough results. It allows you to pour more divisions into a breakthrough allowing for a wider encirclement and better staying power to fight off any counter attack.
Field Hospital: This is primarily useful in multiplayer. In single player I can WC with Canada so there are no manpower constraints in the game currently. If you allow the AI to meatgrinder your troops away then you deserve to loose, so useless there. In multiplayer where you aren't fighting a brain dead half rotten pumpkin of an opponent then they can pay big dividends in the late game.

MP: Into calvary division for supression. Upgrade them to envoke harsher occupation laws, but otherwise save the research time.

 

[Dudas Drakaan]

Thanks for all the info! A couple of questions.

What would be optimal for a high man power nation to make?

What is the meaning of mixing mountaineers with marines in the 5Mount/4marine/2AT division? Or do you mean 5Mount/2AT and 4 Marine/2AT?

I like mixing mountaineers with marines for an all-round excellent fighting force in replacement of standard infantry. Infantry have more defense and HP, while mountaineers and marines have more organization, firepower, and breakthrough. So that means mountaineers and marines are better for attacking (since breakthrough is the protective stat used when you are attacking, while defense is the protective stat used only when you are the one being attacked). In addition, the way marines and mountaineers give their bonuses is by an aura - so by mixing mountaineers and marines, both teams get to be fairly good at both fighting in hills/mountains and over rivers and in marshes. The river crossing bonus is particularly devastating, especially against players, because most players feel safe defending a river. That's not the case when the opponent's army is filled with marines.

Another thing is if you are nation who has both an infantry expert and a commando expert in their high command, you can actually buff your mountaineer/ marine divisions twice for a lovely +30% attack, +20% defense, whereas your regular infantry would only get the infantry expert buffs for +15%/+10%. If your entire army is mountaineers and marines that means your whole army gets that extra buff.

For a high manpower/ low IC nation, using infantry divisions without artillery but with commandos instead for that extra punch is perfect. All you need for marines and mountaineers, after all, is just a bit more infantry equipment.

 

[Wraith11B]

Would you mind finding that post? I clicked your link and read some of his posts but couldn't really find it.

Here's the post: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/motorised-divisions.950482/#post-21455634

 

[nicae]

AT: As mentioned above it's currently a joke. TD's are vastly supperior in every metric and not using AT saves you tonnes of research.

That would make you wonder why you can have ultra-modern TDs without any AT tech.

Great tips!

 

[mld0806]

I only use support AT and Arty with specialized units like mountain, marine, and paratroop units. The contribution per gun produced is so much less than line units that they just don't seem worth it to me. But being droppable, not taking frontage, and not affecting the terrain bonuses as much means they are much more useful with these specialized units.