Infantry OP?

[kalauer]

I would also like to Point out that HA and Piercing may be somewhat related, so you may not see a HA of 0 and high Piercing, but as we see in the Image above (WWW Japan #3 @34:20), higher HA does not necessarily mean higher Piercing. It seems to scale much more with Technology (see 34:17 for light tank of a later year).

There is also a nice Showcase of Daniel, presenting all the tooltips:

Piercing: "Having equal of greater Piercing to the Targets armor value allows you to do more damage and effectively pin down their armored Forces."

So it is more than just the "armor break" with more damage we saw in WWW in the combat window. Maybe "Breakthrough" also gets reduced by it?

But ontopic: The high hardness of the tanks (70%) already on a light Version, will make them very effective against INF. Efficiency on the other Hand, will depend on the Nation that uses them.

Germany: comparably low Manpower, high IC ->strong tank divisions since one Brigade only uses 500 Manpower (at least light tank, taken from WWWJapan#3 @ 19:28), compared to 1000 of INF

 

[Gort11]

We haven't really had a chance to see a large mechanised army used well yet. Germany in the original WWW streams (Daniel vs Johan) didn't need to do anything fancy at all since the USSR bugged out and had a huge chunk of its production missing all game. The UK in the same game did mechanise its units, but they were so outnumbered and deployed in such low-supply areas that they weren't able to be very effective.

Japan had little chance to develop anything except infantry units since they basically went to war instantly, and the same can be said of the Hungary stream.

I would like to see Daniel controlling one of the "big boys" of WW2 - USA, USSR, or Germany, since he'll have the opportunity (through pre-war build-up and large numbers of factories) and the need (through strong opponents) to build up a more mechanised army.

From a game-balance point of view leg infantry should be inferior to mechanised units since they require so little production and research to deploy. From a historical point of view leg infantry should be inferior to mechanised units since this was the conflict that showed leg infantry were inferior to mechanised units. So I'll be a bit disappointed if you can efficiently win HoI4 by massive infantry deployments alone.

 

[Orlunu]

the "big boys" of WW2 - USA, USSR, or Germany

 

[Denkt]

I think UK, USA and their allies had alot of motorised and mechanized divisions. They did not employ a very large army but they had a very strong support structure, for each soldier at the front there was maybe 5 people behind that took care about logistics and such.

Germany and Soviet used alot of leg infantry but they did have a much weaker support infrastructure which was maybe how they did manage their very large army sizes but the western allied army was much more effective which can be seen on the very low casualties they took.

In game terms Germany and Soviet built many cheap leg infantry battalions with very few support battalions (maybe artillery) while the western allies built fewer divisions but these had more expensive equipment making them more effective, they could do this thanks to keeping their conscription law at a low level so to keep their factories productive.

If you build alot expensive stuff you should not be able to build a very large army but army size is not everything, an effective army is also important.

From a game-balance point of view leg infantry should be inferior to mechanised units since they require so little production and research to deploy.

They are inferior as motorised move alot faster and mechanized have much stronger combat abilities as their vehicles are used in combat. Mechanzied basically replace the light tank for mid late game. A good idea is to add a few self propelled artillery battalions who can quickly defeat enemy infantry allow the division to quickly move behind enemy lines and cut of their supply lines.

The high hardness of the tanks (70%) already on a light Version, will make them very effective against INF. Efficiency on the other Hand, will depend on the Nation that uses them.

Light tanks are quickly made obsolete then infantry can develop their anti tank weapons at 1942 and 1943, at that point mechanized take over the light tank role.

The heavy tank can pretty much only be pierced by specalized anti tank weapons which make it very suited for breakthroughs.

 

[Mannstien]

Really Light tanks were merged into an APC if you will to perform as both a troop transport and reconnaissance. Later game they will be good to keep in your garrison area's or perhaps as a very fast exploitation division to gobble up provinces as they are relatively cheap.

 

[FOARP]

I saw some good discussion in an AI thread about how Infantry seems really OP in the WWW streams - to the point where no attempt is made to integrate other aspects of a land army (such as artillery and tanks) into an assault.

I didn't want it to be buried in an unrelated thread, so I made this thread for discussion about it to hopefully increase visibility and maybe get a developer response.

This has been a problem since HOI1: you can basically win without building tanks at all.

 

[Bap]

AT brigades provided high Piercing AND Hard Attack, but almost no SA, making them relatively useless against infantry and other soft targets, where their high HA value was totally wasted.

Excellent analysis, but I can`t agree with you on the uselessness of AT against soft targets in HOI3. It is a very cheap brigade and would not add any width. Since they would add org to the the division they are going to increase it`s wining ability considerably. In fact anything will, even HQ units.
Also, at 80% softness, it will add a bit of resilience. Against soft targets they`re as cost effective as armour, which doesn`t seem too bad.
AA units are even better due to efficiency/cost but (like artillery) they have no piercing value. So usually there is no alternative to adding AT to infantry in HOI3.

 

[1337Hospitaller]

I saw some good discussion in an AI thread about how Infantry seems really OP in the WWW streams - to the point where no attempt is made to integrate other aspects of a land army (such as artillery and tanks) into an assault.

I didn't want it to be buried in an unrelated thread, so I made this thread for discussion about it to hopefully increase visibility and maybe get a developer response.

In the first world war wednesday, Johan mechanized his army and his divisions seemed to be superior to Daniel's 1v1.

 

[Kazansky22]

I find it a bit off putting that INF can displace other INF units so "easily" It kind of makes the whole idea of using Tank divisions to breakthrough a bit irrelevant. Although I suppose fast motorized/cavalry divisions still have a role in the exploitation phase.

 

[Gort11]

I think UK, USA and their allies had alot of motorised and mechanized divisions. They did not employ a very large army but they had a very strong support structure, for each soldier at the front there was maybe 5 people behind that took care about logistics and such.

Germany and Soviet used alot of leg infantry but they did have a much weaker support infrastructure which was maybe how they did manage their very large army sizes but the western allied army was much more effective which can be seen on the very low casualties they took.

In game terms Germany and Soviet built many cheap leg infantry battalions with very few support battalions (maybe artillery) while the western allies built fewer divisions but these had more expensive equipment making them more effective, they could do this thanks to keeping their conscription law at a low level so to keep their factories productive.

If you build alot expensive stuff you should not be able to build a very large army but army size is not everything, an effective army is also important.


They are inferior as motorised move alot faster and mechanized have much stronger combat abilities as their vehicles are used in combat. Mechanzied basically replace the light tank for mid late game. A good idea is to add a few self propelled artillery battalions who can quickly defeat enemy infantry allow the division to quickly move behind enemy lines and cut of their supply lines.


Light tanks are quickly made obsolete then infantry can develop their anti tank weapons at 1942 and 1943, at that point mechanized take over the light tank role.

The heavy tank can pretty much only be pierced by specalized anti tank weapons which make it very suited for breakthroughs.

This sounds like a lot of wishful thinking given that the Best Hearts of Iron 4 Player Ever just throws rifles at schoolchildren and shovels them into his front lines, training be damned.

I would love for what you're saying to be reflected in the game, but from what I've seen in all the promotional material so far this looks like a re-run of Darkest Hour where leg infantry is the most efficient unit, which is silly given that it's also the unit that requires the least research to build.

 

[Kovax]

Excellent analysis, but I can`t agree with you on the uselessness of AT against soft targets in HOI3. It is a very cheap brigade and would not add any width. Since they would add org to the the division they are going to increase it`s wining ability considerably. In fact anything will, even HQ units.
Also, at 80% softness, it will add a bit of resilience. Against soft targets they`re as cost effective as armour, which doesn`t seem too bad.
AA units are even better due to efficiency/cost but (like artillery) they have no piercing value. So usually there is no alternative to adding AT to infantry in HOI3.

The low SA is about the same as what you get from an ENG (which negates terrain penalties for the rest of the division) or a HQ brigade, and less than AA. It's not "useless" (which is why I said "relatively" - unless you're talking about a useless relative), but it's one of the weakest things you can put in a division slot except against armor. Yes, it beats an empty division slot, but so does everything else. In HOI3, where slots were VERY limited, spamming AT in every division meant weaker SA compared to most other options. In HOI4, with more complex divisions and more slots, it's clearly more beneficial than harmful.

 

[Mannstien]

I don't see the point of training or unlocking Mountaineers in this game so far infantry with some engineers seems to do just fine? Marines sure for landings but not many are needed, Paratroopers always fun and useful, mountaineers not so much.

 

[Gort11]

Well, presumably the point of mountaineers is that they're more efficient than infantry if they're fighting in hills and mountains, so if the game designers have done their job well a player who builds infantry will lose a hill/mountain fight to a player who spends the same amount of assets on mountaineers.

Mountaineers are probably the weakest of the three specialist infantry types. You can't paratroop without paratroopers, opposed sea-landings appear nigh-impossible without marines, but you can get by in hills and mountains with infantry as you said. Hopefully mountaineers basically slaughter a similar value of infantry in mountains, or you're right, we're not going to see people using them.

 

[kalauer]

I don't see the point of training or unlocking Mountaineers in this game so far infantry with some engineers seems to do just fine? Marines sure for landings but not many are needed, Paratroopers always fun and useful, mountaineers not so much.

ENG negate penalties of Terrain, but not the Bonus of the Defender. So having mountaineers could give you what you Need to push them out. But in the end, that depends on your resources: Manpower and IC vs. Research; and maybe some tactical considerations.

Well, presumably the point of mountaineers is that they're more efficient than infantry if they're fighting in hills and mountains, so if the game designers have done their job well a player who builds infantry will lose a hill/mountain fight to a player who spends the same amount of assets on mountaineers.

Mountaineers are probably the weakest of the three specialist infantry types. You can't paratroop without paratroopers, opposed sea-landings appear nigh-impossible without marines, but you can get by in hills and mountains with infantry as you said. Hopefully mountaineers basically slaughter a similar value of infantry in mountains, or you're right, we're not going to see people using them.

I actually see Marines and Mountaineers as equally useful. Doing mountain attacks with INF should be as bad as doing naval invasions with them: doable but costly. But yes, we do not know yet.

 

[Gort11]

I guess another consideration is how crucial the location you're fighting over is. Marines securing a port can be utterly critical, while it seems to me more rare that you desperately need to conquer a mountain, right now. Paratroopers tend to fight over critical locations since they can get pretty much anywhere you want them to.

At the end of the day though, it's just a case of increasing mountaineer hill/mountain bonuses until they're worth the cost of the research and extra infantry equipment.

 

[Bap]

@Kovax: What I meant to say is that the value of a unit can be much bigger than it`s stats. For example a division of 2xINF + 2xAT would beat a division of 3xINF. So I wouldn`t mind having these in a soft combat. Granted, there are many other more efficient options, but there is no alternative to AT for its piercing value. TD costs 5 times more.
Right, it takes a slot, but a zero width one - and we can usually concentrate more firepower than reasonable.
So if playing Germany, maybe I`d skip AT and build AA and R ART instead. Playing anything against Germany AT is a must-have, and all-round useful.
But in the end this mechanic is another one of HOI`s paradoxes. I hope things will make more sense in HOI4.

 

[Q.ita]

I don't see the point of training or unlocking Mountaineers in this game so far infantry with some engineers seems to do just fine? Marines sure for landings but not many are needed, Paratroopers always fun and useful, mountaineers not so much.

I'm quite sure I have read in another thread that unlike HoI3, here will be not the possibility to supply the troops by air, only by land or sea. So if I remember correctly, the paratroopers will not be so useful.
If anyone can find the link to the thread or to contradict me I would be grateful.

 

[LeibSSolmai]

I am not really sure, but I think they said at any point (probably in a DD) that mountaineers are´t much more expensive then normal infantry, so you build them if you think that there is a chance to fight in mountains (z.B. Spain in the Pyrenees) and otherwise you spare that extra bit of equipment. Mountaineers are not as "special" as the Marines and Paras, I think there wouldn´t be a really problem to make them you standard infantry division if you really think all battles you will fight are in the mountains.

 

[Mannstien]

I'm quite sure I have read in another thread that unlike HoI3, here will be not the possibility to supply the troops by air, only by land or sea. So if I remember correctly, the paratroopers will not be so useful.
If anyone can find the link to the thread or to contradict me I would be grateful.

No it's true, Daniel said it in a Dev stream and I believe Podcat responded in a post somewhere, but for a major with enough research they become useful for a variety of tasks just not as large a variety. So I still think they are useful if you have the resources for the transport planes and the research needed. My main point was that I think the modifiers could use some tweaking to make Mountaineers required if attempting to penetrate into any mountain range where beyond may lie open ground for your armored or regular infantry divisions to spread into, again I'm thinking of trying to break through say the Pyrenees, French Alps, so on and so forth.

(I'm not agreeing mind you that there should be no air resupply, only that indeed the Devs said it won't be in the release game)

 

[Gort11]

I am not really sure, but I think they said at any point (probably in a DD) that mountaineers are´t much more expensive then normal infantry

Mountaineers cost 140 infantry equipment while infantry cost 100.