Inner organization of division-layout importance

[Random Savage]

Hi people! The devs have talked a lot about division customization but does it matter if you have four regiments with three battalions each or three regiments with four battalions each? Is it better to create separate artillery and tank regiments or integrate them with infantry (on the basis of an infantry division of course?) Does anyone know anything about this because they talk a lot about how to customize but not how internal layout affects performance.

 

[RabbidHamster]

According to the Devs, no it does not matter in the 3x4 vs 4x3 infantry scenario (performance is exactly the same).

In regards to your second question, 'armor' and 'infantry' may not mix within a single regiment.

Its my understanding that 'armor' encompasses tanks, self propelled guns, mechanised infantry etc., while 'infantry' includes foot infantry, mountain, towed arty etc.

 

[Random Savage]

According to the Devs, no it does not matter in the 3x4 vs 4x3 infantry scenario (performance is exactly the same).

In regards to your second question, 'armor' and 'infantry' may not mix within a single regiment.

Its my understanding that 'armor' encompasses tanks, self propelled guns, mechanised infantry etc., while 'infantry' includes foot infantry, mountain, towed arty etc.

But do you know if it matters if, for an example, you keep tank destroyers as a seperate "fourth" regiment or integrate them with the rest of the tanks (in an armoured division)? I don't think it really matters thinking it over as these units were usually split up and asigned to support other units in real operations anyway (Like the marines who split their one tank battalion up by giving each of the three marine regiments a tank company during the landings on Pelieliu.) but in game it still might have some effects, so I'll continue my question by adding this.

 

[Wilbry]

It does not matter.
The division designer is an Order of Battle - or an org chart. It has as much bearing on how a division operates as an OOB for a real life division.
Support companies tend toward overall buffs for the division, while regimental battalions are the main body which does the work, and soaks the damage.
You can keep tank destroyers in a separate regiment. There would be no game effect. It would simply make it easier for your own mind to conceptualise and manage your divisions...which is what an OOB is for.

What you WANT is, I think, to have an option for a support company of TDs, which, instead of just a straight stat add like a battalion would, it also gives a percentage buff to some stats.

An example being the engineer company which gives some stat adds, but increases dig in rate and maximum dig in value (I think).

 

[Eusterw]

Does it make a difference, if i build 2 divisions with 8 battalions, of just one with 16 battalions?

I understand, that i can give more detaild orders to two divisions (move one left and one right). But what is about fighting? Does a bigger division fight better? Maybee because there are more hitpoints, or higher overall stats?

 

[potski]

It makes no difference, as long as those two Divs are in the same province fighting the same battle. And as long as there is no combat width issue, caused by other Divs joining the combat.

But two smaller Divs are in theory more manoeuvrable, so you could attack from more than one direction and that gets a bonus. But they must be very well co-ordinated, otherwise they risk being defeated in detail.

 

[Frosted Vert]

This is one of the reasons why having corps-level assets would be nice. Not every division needs tank destroyers, and it may not be feasible to build enough to equip them all, even if you wanted to. Having a tank destroyer battalion to throw into the mix when enemy armour is on the attack is crucial however. With the current system, does that mean keeping a division off the line, just because it contains the one TD battalion I need in reserve?

 

[potski]

It shouldn't. You could create a template with just the TD in it, then move it to where it's required. Could be alot of micro, and requires you to quickly establish that a particular combat includes enemy tanks. But that would give you something like the way the US tried to use their TDs in France.

 

[kalauer]

Adding a new column in the division designer costs more army experience, does it? I might try to find this in the last Japan WWW, where i guess I saw it.

 

[BeauNiddle]

This is one of the reasons why having corps-level assets would be nice. Not every division needs tank destroyers, and it may not be feasible to build enough to equip them all, even if you wanted to. Having a tank destroyer battalion to throw into the mix when enemy armour is on the attack is crucial however. With the current system, does that mean keeping a division off the line, just because it contains the one TD battalion I need in reserve?

Isn't that what the support companies are for? They move at the same speed as the base unit so adding AT support to a tank company is effectively adding TDs isn't it?

It you want a small amount to handle edge cases you add a support company, if you want your main focus to be on that form of battle you add battalions.

 

[GsusNSV]

Adding a new column in the division designer costs more army experience, does it? I might try to find this in the last Japan WWW, where i guess I saw it.

Not anymore. Now it only cost more, if you add the first battalion of a new group (Leg infantry, Motorized or tanks).
So adding a infantry battalion to a pure infantry division was 5 XP, regardless if it was in an existing brigade or a new one. But giving this division Cav would cost you 25 XP. (a second Cav battalion should be only 5 again.)

 

[GsusNSV]

Sry for the double post, but I remembered this pictures a bit too late and I can't upload them to an existing post.

Spoiler