HQ Brigades

[Bunnytob]

I can't exactly say I'm a veteran HOI3 player, and I much prefer strategizing to actually executing said strategies, but there's one thing I want to ask those who visit this forum - do you use HQ brigades in frontline combat, if so, how, and if not, what for?
A brief look at the stats for HQ brigades shows that they have about as much defence and toughness as regular infantry, but nowhere near the attacking stats - so I figured that they could be used as a discount infantry brigade to boost combat capabilities somewhat, enabling, for example, an infantry corps to effectively be composed of 6 divisions rather than 5.
HQ brigades can also be used in the same manner to buff garrisons ("Gotta have a Polish Army HQ somewhere and I really don't wanna lose Minsk, so...) or maybe as distractions for bombers given their reasonable air defence.
So I was wondering what the general community did with HQs, if anything at all.

And on a related note, how large do you generally make corps, armies, and army groups? (I tend to fill out a corps with a full 5 divisions, though this does result in less flexibility than I'd like - for example, invading Poland with two army groups total and having less than one full Panzer Army for France.)

 

[Wraith11B]

HQ Brigades are support units with no combat capability independent of a combat arms unit (ie, infantry, cavalry or armor of whatever level). I've taken to buffing them with some infantry brigades, and some supporting units (AT and AA). Thus, you can get a better-than-middling division to support operations. With my mechanized corps, a heavy armored brigade, infantry and AA forms the spearheads for assaults. I've gotten away from putting any fast motorized units in an HQ, as it generally only gets up to 5ish KPH and thus can't exploit the benefits of the speed.

 

[Kovax]

HQ brigades have combat stats, and those can be buffed with several scattered Land Doctrines. The problem is that a lone HQ cannot fight, and will auto-retreat without taking or inflicting casualties. Of course, you CAN add brigades directly to the HQ, turning it in to a 6th division with somewhat weaker base stats than normal, but better terrain modifiers to offset that in many situations. I'm fond of using HQ+2xINF+ART, sometimes substituting AA for the ART if I'm going to be facing a lot of enemy aircraft. It will also take two levels of the one armored doctrine to speed up your HQs to match the infantry, otherwise they'll slow the entire division down to 3mph.

Turning HQs into combat divisions has the additional benefit of speeding up commander experience gain, as they receive XP both from the units under their command and for their own combat participation. Having 5 divisions attached concentrates that experience onto a smaller group of leaders, rather than having more leaders with less divisions under them all taking longer to promote. That's a good way to "fast track" a small group of officers with good traits for later promotion to higher posts. In the case of China, or other countries that don't have enough commanders for all of the commands, using 6 divisions per Corps means a few less leaders needed.

If possible, I fill out a division structure entirely for a major front, but often have "skeleton" Army Groups for side theaters, filled out with only a couple of divisions in one Corps under the command of one Army. I may or may not add more than one brigade to the Army and AG HQs, depending on the situation, since they're often parked well behind the lines to cover a larger section of front, but one combat brigade is sufficient to block routing enemies, finish off Partisans that have already been bombed into immobility (TAC are lethal against Partisans, quickly bombing them out of both ORG and supply), or chase down or drive off enemy HQs.

 

[Bunnytob]

I'd figure the extra 3/4 of a division would be most useful in Armoured Corps - the HQ can drive ahead with the tanks and plug the created gaps in the line, while also staying close to the tanks.

 

[Wraith11B]

The problem is that the HQs don't move that fast. They can move faster than straight leg infantry, but they won't move much faster even with the addition of "speeding" units like Engineers or Armored Cars.

 

[Kovax]

Each level of tech increases the HQ's speed by 0.5mph, and they start out at 3mph. You need two tech levels to match basic infantry, and two more to keep up with most cavalry, which already puts you into the timeframe of the bulk of the war. By the end of the war in 1945, if you throw enough research points at it, they might be able to match some SP units, but not ARM or MOT. I just pair them with one or two Infantry brigades, often with an ART or AA brigade as well. Even with a single combat brigade, they're able to fight, and sufficient for delivering a third axis of attack on a province to force an "encircled" penalty.

Since HQs fight better than AT against Infantry (the only thing worse than AT against soft targets is MPs), and you can upgrade the HQ's SA firepower and defensive stats, a HQ with 3 combat brigades is more like the effectiveness of 3.5 brigades. As with ENG, they don't deliver all that much firepower of their own, but they do reduce penalties for certain types of terrain, so they're definitely not a wasted slot in a division even if you ignore the actual firepower. Since you're paying to supply them anyway, you might as well get some combat use out of them.

 

[Pugmak]

In my infantry corps and army HQs, I tend to add 2x infantry brigs and 1x AT. I use them to "plug the gap" when extra anti armor assets are needed along the infantry line. And I use them to catch leakers that can spring up in my own backfield. I prefer a somewhat slower HQ compared to line divisions because it gets annoying when clicking on an entire corps to move into a hex and the HQ gets there first only to be immediately attacked by a next door enemy.

My armor HQs, I'll add a single motor inf brig and a tank destroyer brig. I use them to keep the backfield clean and catch the occasional leaker.

My garrison HQs I make into extra garrison divisions with 2x garrison divisions, and either an artillery or AA depending on expected enemy type prevalence.

Edited to add:

Forgot Mnt and Marine, when I use them, I load up each of those HQs with their brig type the max they'll hold and use them as additional divisions.

 

[Pugmak]

Also forgot to add...

I tend to attach any support aircraft (TAC or dive bombers) directly to the Army Group they'll be supporting.

 

[ichitori]

I usually place atleast 1 infantry or garrison brigade in my HQs so enemy militia can't over run them easily. Shortcut key "r" if I remember correctly to place 1 brigade in a HQ.

I often have fighting HQs and HQs used for defense on the front, with various brigade types in them. In my Panzer Corps 3 star HQs and Panzer Army 4 star HQs I often place tanks. For example my preferred Panzer Corp received a heavy tank, medium tank, motorised and tank destroyer when I had Superior Firepower researched.

I have Logistic trait generals in charge of my Panzer HQs so I get that maximum effect for my tanks that are in the HQ division.

Ideally I would atleast have an infantry or garrison attached to all my HQs, but nearing my end game I have around 85% HQs with something in them.

 

[Phili]

I like to add 2Inf+Art to my Corps HQ's for the following reasons:

As Kovax says it turns the HQ into a combat Division which gives the Commander a chance to earn extra XP quickly.

It gives my Corps 6 combat Divisions. 6, 12 and 24 are the most divisable numbers. With 6 Divisions I can spread them across 3 provinces, 2 Divs to a province. With 2 Cores, 12 Divisions, I can spread them across the same 3 provinces, 4 to a province. If each Corps also contain divisions that are 2Inf+Art+(At or Eng) I can concentrate my At or Engineers against the same target.

Stacking penalties allow you to attack an enemy with 1Division + 3Divisions per province that you are attacking from. If you have 12 Divisions spread accross 3 provinces attacking 1 target province you can attack with 10 of those Divisions before getting stacking penalties and for me the 2HQ's are the logical Divisions to leave behind.

Adding those 2Inf brigades to your HQ gives it 2 frontage. You're allowed 5Frontage + 5 for each attacking province. If during an attack you aren't using all your frontage you can add more Divisions. If I have an unused HQ thats when I throw it in.

A HQ division with 2Inf+Art added may not be as good as a 3Inf+Art Division but its better than a HQ on its own. Against a strong enemy like a major power I'll pair it with another Division so its not on its own.

For a Panzerkorps I add 2Mot+Ac. A Panzerkorps HQ is always slower than the Divisions under it so it rarely gets a chance to be at the front line. I think anything more expensive like Arm would be a waste of the Arm.

2Inf+Art and 2Mot+Ac are valid Divisions in their own right. Most infantry Divisions are 2Inf+Art+ something else, usually another Inf but also At or Engineers.
My Armour and motor Divisions are 2Mot+Ac+something else, usually LArm, Arm or SPArt. So I dont see a fighting HQ Division as a weak Divisions just because the HQ isn't as strong as some of the other support brigades you could add.

Army composition. You should have an idea of what your Divisions, Corps and Armies contain at the start of the game because it cuts down on micromanagement later in the game.
When I first played as Germany I would create Panzer and Motor Divisions using the brigades available in Jan 36. So LArm but no Arm or SPArt. The intention was that after the fall of France I would upgrade my LArm to Arm and reorganize my Divisions to include SPArt before invading the USSR. The amount of micromanagement required to get my Divisions back to German soil to do the upgrades and buildng the right number of SPArt for all my divisions and then what to do with the brigades that were swapped out to make room for the SPArt became a nightmare. I also had no consistant composition to the range of Divisions in my Corps so that for each campaign I had to reorgnize each Corps befor campaign.

Now I make all my Divisions to the same template. Give all my Corps the same mix of Divisions and all my Armies the same mix of Corps. I put Specialised Units like Marines, Para's or Mountain troops into their own Corps and often attach them to HQ's higher than Army. Garissons go into their own Corps and Armies.

 

[Kovax]

I use different divisions in a Corps, but use the same Corps design repeatedly. Depending on country, for an Infantry Corps I prefer:

(1) HQ+2xINF+(ART or AA, depending on the enemy's use of bombers)
(1) 2xINF+ART+ENG (I may use another INF instead of ENG in lower tech countries)
(1) 2xINF+ART+AT (the AT may not be needed if the opponent fields little/no Armor)
(3) 3xINF+ART

The support brigade in the HQ division depends on the adversary it will typically be used against. Forces potentially facing heavy enemy air attacks (such as playing France against Germany, or in Germany's forces on the Western Front) will get AA, while those facing lower tech opposition or few air attacks will get ART. Last attempt at France, I didn't use enough AA and got spanked from above, even though my units were winning the ground battles (Combat progress was as low as 0-1% for the attacker in several cases, but my defending units simply disintegrated within a few days from air bombardment).

Armored Corps vary tremendously from country to country, but I never mix LARM/ARM/MOT with a HQ brigade, because it will inevitably slow down the whole division to a crawl. That MIGHT be a viable combination with HARM, since HARM is also pathetically slow, and the HQ would at least offer some assistance in less desirable terrain. You could use regular INF to give it more staying power without affecting its speed (since both HARM and HQ brigades require an attached line brigade to be able to fight).

 

[ichitori]

(since both HARM and HQ brigades require an attached line brigade to be able to fight).

I am pretty sure that is wrong. All tanks can stand alone to fight and are not considered support units.

That is why one of my favorite divisions 2 x tank brigades + 2 armored cars brigades works.

So tanks are able to fight without infantry in their division and they can be the main lone fight brigade in a division and still engage in battle.

I am pretty sure I am right, unless I'm living in the Twilight Zone or something since I've been using tanks alone as the fighting brigade with support brigades in my division for the last 350
hours.

I agree division makeup may moderately differ with different countries. I only play as Germany so tanks are very important to me.

Oh yes, I also agree about mixing light tanks with medium tanks that has never worked out for me. Although maybe there is a way to make it work, but I gave up on that.

 

[ichitori]

Yes, just tested it out.

1 heavy tank brigade was able to engage an enemy militia in battle.

I Tested:

One, 3 star HQ plus only one heavy tank in the HQ division. This configuration engaged in combat. Although what I didn't know--The heavy tank name disappears and the tank brigade goes under the name of 3 star HQ. But the tank brigade is there and listed in the battle stats.

I Tested:

One, 3 star HQ plus 2 heavy tanks in the HQ division. Also engaged in combat. Lost heavy tank name in the battle screen same as with one, 3 star HQ and one heavy tank.

--------------------

I did notice during my tests and what may be something worth fiddling with is when I had an HQ plus 1 heavy tank my general's experience went through the roof. He gained 70 points in one battle with militia. Although it could've just been the fact I had my game speed set close to max. I never noticed my generals gaining 70 points though. I always thought it was lower per battle. I could be wrong.

 

[Kovax]

I am pretty sure that is wrong. All tanks can stand alone to fight and are not considered support units.

My mistake. HARM can fight alone, but SHARM cannot, since it is a support brigade. I rarely go beyond ARM in most games, and NEVER use SHARM.

 

[TheRomanRuler]

I definetly use them, i don't see why i would not. But it varies a lot how i use them. I always attach at least 1x militia to them, and depending on country and situation, i upgrade them (or directly build) to better builds. But i always limit them to defensive only duties, so they don't receive armor or anything too fancy. 1x Infantry 1xanti tank and 1x anti air. if i can, i will also add either extra unit of infantry or artillery, depending what i can afford.

One reason why i often tend to first build militia instead of directly infantry is because some nations in some situations lack enough units just to ensure there are no gaps in the line. Even with just 1x militia HQs are better than nothing, and can be enough to stop enemy advance.



Though in vanilla you can do all kinds of things and still do just fine.

 

[ichitori]

My mistake. HARM can fight alone, but SHARM cannot, since it is a support brigade. I rarely go beyond ARM in most games, and NEVER use SHARM.

I've only built SHARM 6 times in my 550 hours with the game. I didn't know they were considered support, but I believe you. Probably because I always built them with a frontline brigade like HARM in the division so they were able to engage in combat.

 

[caffran]

I remember this question used to cause huge arguments on the forum in HoI3's heyday. I believe it was banned in most multiplayer games as it was seen as 'cheating'. You're getting an extra division in every Corps. which means an extra 4-5 divisions, essentially an extra Corps, in every Army.

Basically it boils down to HOW you play. If you play it as a 'game', then yes, you add extra Brigades because you want to win. and as the AI will never do it, you've immediately got an edge.

If you play 'realistically', 'historically' ? I'm not sure how to describe it, but you use HQ's as HQ's. their full of clerks, cooks, motor pool techs, media, staff officers, etc. these guys will pick up a weapon and defend themselves, but their not really trained for offensive operations, and so 'realistically' speaking they should not be used in the front line.

But again, it's all down to personal preference and flavour. If you want to use them, no ones going to judge you. well, maybe by me, but what do I know?

 

[TheRomanRuler]

I remember this question used to cause huge arguments on the forum in HoI3's heyday. I believe it was banned in most multiplayer games as it was seen as 'cheating'. You're getting an extra division in every Corps. which means an extra 4-5 divisions, essentially an extra Corps, in every Army.

Basically it boils down to HOW you play. If you play it as a 'game', then yes, you add extra Brigades because you want to win. and as the AI will never do it, you've immediately got an edge.

If you play 'realistically', 'historically' ? I'm not sure how to describe it, but you use HQ's as HQ's. their full of clerks, cooks, motor pool techs, media, staff officers, etc. these guys will pick up a weapon and defend themselves, but their not really trained for offensive operations, and so 'realistically' speaking they should not be used in the front line.

But again, it's all down to personal preference and flavour. If you want to use them, no ones going to judge you. well, maybe by me, but what do I know?

I don't think non-combatants are represented in any HOI3 unit, and soldiers we see in HQ are staff officers, messengers, guards and other such troops who are quite capable of fighting if need be, including those who have risen through ranks.
Historically lot of HQ's had some reserve units directly assigned to their command. These were sometimes completely detached from regular command structure. In HOI3 this can be represented by attaching brigades to HQs directly.

Also, though this varied a lot, both in how things were supposed to go according to regulations and how they actually happened in practice. Especially in nations that introduced conscription only during war. But in many armies everyone first went through basic training period, and only after that they would be assigned as cooks or clerks or motor pool technicians etc. Especially in nations with long tradition of mandatory universal conscription young men could get their military training during peace time, then once they are conscripted in war time those who had careers as cooks would become cooks, those who were skilled technicians would be assigned to that role etc etc.
This is just one of those many examples where people's world views are affected by cultural domination of English speaking world. Many foreigners can get lot of information in English, but only few English speakers can even understand and thus obtain information from other languages. So since large parts of English speaking world have not had long traditions of mandatory conscription even during peace time, idea of untrained cooks being drafted into an army is quite different from reality in many nations, where citizens might serve in the army before they have even started their careers as cooks.

If non-combatants would be represented in Hearts of Iron 3, all armies would easily at least double in size. Germany in real life had over 18 million men who "served" during the war, only tiny fraction of those are represented in HOI3.

So it really depends on how you want to see things. Regardless of how you see thigns, in HOi3 there are many non-combatants who are not visible in any units. All those supplies that are transported to armies don't just automatically get there.There are always huge numbers of personnel all around all the units in HOi3 that we never see in the game. And really it would be a nightmare if they would try to make all those personnel visible. It would be great, but sadly mostly it would be waste of time to implement non-combatant personnel into HOI.
Its not like during the war you just had few million men in the army and rest of the people were continuing on their lives. Everyone had to contribute to war effort, and even though lot of civilian jobs were still necessary and how well those resources and personnel were mobilized varied a lot, there were still way more people who contributed to WW2 than just those millions of soldiers who did the fighting.

 

[Kovax]

My take on it is that a lot of assets were assigned at higher levels of command, and parceled out to the subordinate units, plus many of them had a company of regular troops assigned for HQ defense. Those assets are not represented, so a more realistic approach might be to have the HQ brigade with no more than ONE attached line brigade and a couple of support units, such as ART, AA, and/or AT.

On the other hand, if I'm playing a minor country (which I usually do), I generally need every bit of help I can get. Using the inherent firepower of the HQ brigade and faster promotion of generals for a small edge over the AI is a concession I'm usually willing to make, especially if I'm playing at a level of difficulty that artificially penalizes me and boosts the AI.

 

[mrsund]

Is adding GAR and/or MP to some HQs (if you already have HQs in the area) worth it for partisan surpression or is it better to add INF in this role as well?

Also, it was a while since I played, what is the most effective way to build units regarding the conscription/mobilisation laws and are the air, land an naval units affected the same by it?