With the new chain of command system, you run out of good generals pretty quick as the Soviets if you use small division templates.
Are 10 width obsolete now?
Are 10 width obsolete now?
is 10 width inf divisions still viable?
- Thread starter uberjedi
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I am not quite sure. But I do really hope so. When it comes to combat width, the only thing that should be viable is whatever width you need for that current situation.
They are even more viable now because of reduced SA. Just use them without a general.
With Offensive Doctrine no longer giving field marshals that -10 width bonuses, at this point I'd say that the template is only good for garrisons and paratroopers now.
You could use them to exploit the fact that org is the same for 1 or 20 battalions, and using rotation of forces, indefinetely stall an attacker, while doing the killing with CAS.
Ah, this. I haven't tried that particular thing. Never liked CAS.
10 width is better than ever, due to the nerf to soft attack and buffs to mass assault. Also stacking entrenchment bonuses from generals is now a thing and planning bonus has been nerfed so defense with 10 width +CAS is pretty much unbreakable unless you can win in the air.
Infantry with no engineers and 'just' Mass Assault entrenchment buff +stacking entrenchment boni gives now:
5 Base + 5 MA + 15 (General + FM) = 25. 25 = 50%. With defensive doctrine it rises to 65% entrenchment.
Engineers can provide extra +13% (in this case) / +18.2% / +23.4% / +28.6% boni. Welcome to dig-in-land ^^
5 Base + 5 MA + 15 (General + FM) = 25. 25 = 50%. With defensive doctrine it rises to 65% entrenchment.
Engineers can provide extra +13% (in this case) / +18.2% / +23.4% / +28.6% boni. Welcome to dig-in-land ^^
Thanks for the updates from those who have used 10 width. I take back my previous statement.
I actually liked to run 12 width divisions in previous China playthroughs, rather than 7/2 as I do now. Maybe I'll do that again.
I actually liked to run 12 width divisions in previous China playthroughs, rather than 7/2 as I do now. Maybe I'll do that again.
I don't get this. Wouldn't a 40-width tank division instantly kill these and cause huge losses? If I were to put in two more SP-AA battalions, they would even cause production damage on the attacking CAS which would offset the disproportional cost of losses by strength %.
They don't kill them quickly enough if the 10 width spam player has the mass assault reinforce rate. Every time you knock a division out of the battle another will reinforce and generally they reinforce quicker than you can knock them out of the battle at the moment
Yeah, but if you build your divisions specifically to counter low width spam, aren't you going to grind down all manpower of the defending side?
What happens if I build divisions made mostly of SP-AA to masskill CAS?
It depends on quite a few factors.
In general low width spam is a more defensive/delaying measure. The countries you are gonna see using it are gonna be countries like France (it is going to die anyway so manpower is no issue and the longer they hold the better), Soviet Union (they have a whole lot of manpower and they need to delay until the USA gears up) and maybe the Raj for El alamein, where they would put say 30 10 widths in the chokepoint and just cycle endlessly. Also, if you don't have air cover/spaa cas is going to deal an immense amount of damage to you as it just takes so long to grind your way through, if its even possible.
It's a viable counter. The problem is that your opponent just takes their cas down and then your divisions have less soft attack because of all the spaa. The cas is in effect a bonus. If you can bomb with it then even better, but even without it your opponent will be hard pressed to ever take a province from you.
Where the 10-width really shines are in the high-pop/low producing countries such as the Chinas - where manpower is almost irrelevant because there's so much of it and you're going to be fighting a defensive war. The bigger question, is can you produce enough of the bigger units that can counter the spam to be able to? Your opponent almost doesn't care about everyone having a gun - you can work the strategy by having divisions at low equipment.
Okay, so it's basically sacrificing manpower and equipment to gain time. Which in itself isn't much of a problem, I suppose the issue is it's not being punishing enough for the defenders.
But really, should you expect to favourably attack if the enemy controls the skies?
The problem is that pure infantry spam is very cheap and stacking the soft attack to counter it like Heavy SP arty is expensive, so if you have equal industry the pure inf spammer will be able to outbuild you on planes
It is very punishing for defenders. W/O CAS the attacker takes almost no damage, so the viability is contingent on air superiority + CAS. CAS on the defender side allows consistent and strong damage ignoring armor. When attacker is applying -50% to defender with its own air superiority and disrupting CAS, sustained attacks can inflict > 1 million casualties in less than a year if the front is long enough. Even if manpower holds, few nations have the industry to sustain that.