Mass assault vs superior firepower

[ferrisboy]

So i’ve been comparing the stats of SP (airland, integrated) and MA (deep battle) to decide which is better for defense in MP for the soviet union. SP seems to have better stats in everything except reinforce rate, recovery rate, supplies and combat width. Do the bonuses to reinforce rate and recovery rate really matter? Will stuffing an extra 2 infantry battalions in my division in MA help it more than just making another more effective division in SP? I plan to make my divisions pure infantry with engineer and arty and then heavy tank division. If that matters in choosing MA or SP. Thanks!

 

[$ilent_$trider]

Superior Firepower receives larger bonus the more support companies they have.
If you are not going to add those, and just enginner and arty for a pure infantry division and if you are going to use the infantry only to hold the line and the tanks to push through, I'd say, go with Mass Assault.

 

[Meglok]

So i’ve been comparing the stats of SP (airland, integrated) and MA (deep battle) to decide which is better for defense in MP for the soviet union. SP seems to have better stats in everything except reinforce rate, recovery rate, supplies and combat width. Do the bonuses to reinforce rate and recovery rate really matter? Will stuffing an extra 2 infantry battalions in my division in MA help it more than just making another more effective division in SP? I plan to make my divisions pure infantry with engineer and arty and then heavy tank division. If that matters in choosing MA or SP. Thanks!

It depends upon the tactics you plan to use as Russia. If you are going meat wall vs an early Fritz Blitz then all 4 of these are important. Unit cycling time and and increasing the size of your org wall while keeping it at 10 or 20 means a lot. And being able to stack in a hex without taking attrition hits from lack of supplies is critical. Since your plan seems to be meat wall MA is your friend. Using SP effectively requires a large investment in arty and support companies. It will pay off, but usually Russia has it's hands full in the early game. Russia as an arty whore was historically more of a late 1942 and on thing.

 

[HCP2311]

What is your Template like? With Russia and China (Real China) I like to use 2 arty, 2 rocket, 4 anti-tank and 2 anti-air and fill the rest with infantry. I use it for both assault and defense. With China specifically I'll have 2-3m in the field at any given time and 20+ in reserve. Its not a great template for breakthrough, but all you need to do is sit and wait for the computer to smash itself against your fronts and when there is no one left to fight swoop in and mop up with your literal horde.

Edit: Oh never mind, you are asking about Deep Battle not Mobile. If it sort of answers your question I recommend Mass Mobile over assault. It really simplifies things logistically in the long run. I only use Superior Firepower when I need to conserve friendly life.

 

[Bouchart]

Another consideration is that the SU already starts with the first level of Mass Assault, and that their Officers Purge penalty increases the time it takes to research doctrines, so you'll be able to go through Mass Assault quicker.

 

[kaguravitro]

Get higher recovery rate is for Ai getting meat in the meat grinder. Worst with other stats from maxm charge tactics. Subverting are even further crocks capitmodding defines value in combat

 

[Technoincubus]

Rule of thumb is to change doctrine to ANYTHING from Mass Assault. Mass Assault is a penalty, not benefit.

 

[Zwirbaum]

Rule of thumb is to change doctrine to ANYTHING from Mass Assault. Mass Assault is a penalty, not benefit.

It is not. After the WtT it is actually pretty decent doctrine.

 

[Technoincubus]

It is not. After the WtT it is actually pretty decent doctrine.

No. All it provides is recovery rate. Reinforce rate in case of USSR were nerfed from NKVD NF and moved in a nerfed way to Mss Assault. All otherdoctrines provide more both in terms of stats and flat bonuses

 

[Alex_brunius]

No. All it provides is recovery rate. Reinforce rate in case of USSR were nerfed from NKVD NF and moved in a nerfed way to Mss Assault. All otherdoctrines provide more both in terms of stats and flat bonuses

No.

Mass Assault have the best infantry, defense and hp stats due to -0.4 width allowing you to cram in more of it. This is a unique bonus no other tree get.
Mass Assault have the second highest entrenchment possible ( after GBP so higher than SF ), which is a great bonus when on the defensive.
Mass Assault have the best reinforce rate by a huge margin, if this bonus used to be free or not before for Soviet is completely irrelevant to it's usefulness currently. Reinforce rate is critical to be able to be fighting well on the defensive, and Soviet can't afford signal companies for all their infantry unlike many other major nations.
Mass Assault have the lowest supply consumption of any doctrine tree.
Mass Assault have half as much minimum training time required before deploying is possible as any other doctrine, so you can throw out infantry to plug gaps much faster.

 

[Technoincubus]

-0.4 width means more equipment should be spent.
Entrenchment have dubious value as AI constantly shuffled divisions.
Reinforcement bonus is great, yeas.
Supply consumption is not that taxing as LOG can reduce it considerably to acceptable levels.
Training is also have dubious value as by the time war starts main bulk of forces are deployed and it is extremely situational to deploy divisions several days earlier.

 

[Zarine]

Let say it like this, for a specific battle, Mass Assault is the worse.
For a higher level, Mass Assault is quite ok.

Superior firepower is good for specific battle but doesn't give any higher level benefit.

 

[Orlunu]

You're all ignoring the most important point: MA allows the Soviet Union to go to 33% recruitable population. Can Superior Firepower let you put a full third of the USSR's population into the meatgrinder? No. No it can't.

 

[Alex_brunius]

-0.4 width means more equipment should be spent.

Sure, but unlike the Germans who need to pay 10 times as much for tank divisions to increase quality/firepower density on the front, you can pay maybe 10-15% more for your infantry divisions filling the front and get 25% more infantry in it ( Since the expensive part of infantry divisions is support/artillery not a few more rifles ).

Entrenchment have dubious value as AI constantly shuffled divisions.

Then don't use the AI? I never use AI battleplans for defensive divisions and I have no issues at all to always have max entrenchment for my divisions used for defense. Battleplans only give you bonuses when attacking anyways, so there is no reason to use them for defense unless you play speed 4-5 games.

Supply consumption is not that taxing as LOG can reduce it considerably to acceptable levels.

Again, yes but you need to pay alot of support equipment and trucks for this, as well as investing research. Something Germany or USA can afford, but not Soviet. Your getting a bonus for free that everyone else has to pay for.

You're all ignoring the most important point: MA allows the Soviet Union to go to 33% recruitable population. Can Superior Firepower let you put a full third of the USSR's population into the meatgrinder? No. No it can't.

This requires going for Mass Mobilization though. Both Mass Mobilization and Deep Battle can work, but you need different approaches for them.

 

[Secret Master]

Supply consumption is not that taxing as LOG can reduce it considerably to acceptable levels.

Meanwhile, in my last MP game, I had multiple areas where logistics was the primary limiter on how many divisions and planes I could cram into a specific part of the front. Another 10-20% in supply reduction, and I might have saved India and Malaysia. I simply couldn't put enough troops there to stop the Japanese and their super generals.

It's even worse when fighting in Russia. I can't count the number of times logistics has been the primary limiter of force concentration when playing as either Germany or the Soviets. Sure, as Germany, I might have 25,000 Panzer IVs rolling into the Soviet Union. Too bad I can't concentrate them all against either Moscow or Stalingrad. And when they get divided, the Soviets have a better chance to fight back.

Also, since the supply reduction stacks with LOG and does not require equipment like LOG, it scales well with poor armies or damaged armies. Lost a bunch of trucks and support equipment? Well, those LOG companies are not functioning properly, but your bonus from Mass Assault is.

Mass Assault isn't my favorite doctrine tree, but it's not useless.

 

[Gort11]

Again, yes but you need to pay alot of support equipment and trucks for this, as well as investing research. Something Germany or USA can afford, but not Soviet. Your getting a bonus for free that everyone else has to pay for.

Sounds tempting to try a USSR game where I max out my logistics company research and give one to each of my divisions, which are all made of 50 battalions of infantry.

Your divisions only taking 40% of the supplies sounds pretty damn good. (or is it 48%? Not sure how the stacking works)

 

[Stug_Life]

If you are wanting mostly defense then what about Grand Battle Plan? Otherwise Mass Assault would be better for what you are talking about.

 

[GAGA Extrem]

I am someone who usually goes for Superior Firepower (even as SOV), but Mass Assault is definitely not a bad pick for them. It is focused a lot more on the strategic level compared to other doctrines, so the benefits are a bit harder to evaluate, but I am pretty confident it is valid choice if you adjust your army & division setup for it.

One thing that is often overlooked with Mass Assault is the fact that its tactics affect air support in combat: On defence fewer planes will join due to lower combat width, while on attack you can squeeze in more bombers.

 

[Meglok]

MA is the meat wall rope-a-dope response to the Fritz Blitz. It is designed to let you field ginormous amounts of grunts with minimal equipment to stall an enemy's advance until such time as you can field decent offensive units and take the initiative.

If that is not what you want to do then go with GBP or SF. But in Russia's case MA fits them like a glove in an early campaign. At a certain point quantity becomes a quality in of itself. Almost any other nation would freak at losing several hundred thousand to encirclements. Russia just shrugs and says send me more LL you capitalist running dogs.

 

[Alex_brunius]

One thing that is often overlooked with Mass Assault is the fact that its tactics affect air support in combat: On defence fewer planes will join due to lower combat width, while on attack you can squeeze in more bombers.

Well that does depend on how much actual width the enemy put into the combat as well. AFAIK the amount of bombers that can join depend on the enemy width engaged, so your not actually "squeezing" in more bombers targeting the same divisions, just broadening or narrowing the battle in general ( Allowing for both more/less divisions -> planes supporting both sides ).

Lowering combat width on defense can be risky as well, because that makes it harder to reinforce in time which can have potentially disastrous consequences. This is something I hope Paradox get around to look into in the future, because the design intention seem to be that lower width on defense should be a good thing, but especially if you use 40 width divisions and fight a single direction combat the result in practice can become the reverse.