MA is better imho in the Soviet far east because of the supply problem there.
I usually keep only pure inf units east of the Urals.
I usually keep only pure inf units east of the Urals.
Mass assault vs superior firepower
- Thread starter ferrisboy
- 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 might be misremembering, but I *think* the amount of air planes per battle is governed by the potential frontage, not the actual frontage used by either side.
Misremembering. It is up to 3 planes per 1 enemy engaged combat width. (actually fighting)
@GAGA Extrem You have a great point: the combat tactics for Mass mobilization "Mass Charge" for offense and "Guerilla Tactics" for defense are special tactics only for that branch that increase or decrease combat width by 50%!
Tactics is non exploited tool in game, change since many problems. I'm working in new way to use doctrines and tactics, I'm coding a party of files but looking for better values in define files. With some changes in limits for charge in combat you don't get total destruction of red army but some problems are still a problem, don't bypass mountains so they become traps and is not configurable before is not in Ai frontline logic
Oh yeah, the tactics system definitely deserves an upgrade, it's the weakest aspect of combat by far imo.
doctrines is bad system, im traying to build doctrines as general aprococh, then the actual idea from doctrine from a set of ideas with restrictions and actived by desicion for player or event by ai (more flexible but thtas the part i dont worked now), so 60 tactics filters by the usage of this ideas. im working in tactics the problem is to see the downdrade in game speed, but a change in define gets larger times to re engage land units to compensate time for movements and also get a minor porcentage of combats at same time.
I don't have a major problem with doctrines, or even with tactics as a mechanic as a matter of fact, but the interface is terrible.
The idea for them seems to be the analog to "phases" in other games, but while CK2 and EU4 have less than a handful of phases, HoI4 has dozens of tactics, which makes keeping track of what's happening on them and their transition very difficult.
If you had a timer on screen and the game told you which tactics your general has a chance to go in the next tick, at least you'd have something to look out for, but the way it is, you can largely ignore it and just keep your eyes on the division's numbers.
Perhaps calling it worse mechanic might've been a little much, but it is the most opaque and unsatisfactory imo.
doctrines actualy cant make a response for the tactic getting defensive in the way more convinent. thats the easy critic
MA also has great tank bonuses, backhand blow, and losses 25% less organization when moving your armies, its a great finisher for a great tree!
I am not sure if this is a good thing. Especially the decrease of combat width can be extremely bad for defense. I have seen many unnecessary loses in battles because of that. Example: Having 2x40 width division in the defense -> reduction of front width to 40 width -> only one division left in battle (it is always the division at the lower end of the list, because of that you might lose the division with high org which just got into the battle recently) -> If this division runs out of org, you lose this battle.
The thing is: You go down that path intentionally, so you can (and should) also adjust your strategy around it.
The remedy for this is to lower your frontage to 26-27 in order to have three divisions up front, with smaller consequences when one goes, or 20 frontage with four divisions in the line.
I don't see someone using Mass Assault and building infantry division with 40 width.
Actually, using 26-27 width division will not solve this issue, since you can only have 1 26/27w division in case of a 40 width front.
Reducing front width is still often a disadvantage for the defending site, even with 20w divisions. If you have a bad timing, you might lose a defensive battle.
Because exactly for the situations where width got reduced or increased. You don't want a single division fighting there, you want to put as many of them as you can so they can rotate.
I tend to play countries which allows me to focus on a smaller number of powerful, artillery-heavy divisions, so I quite like SF. If I play the UK I often stick with GBP.
I never use MW or MA - not my playstyle.
I never use MW or MA - not my playstyle.
In general, SF is a high-quality, low-quantity doctrine. Deep battle allows you to use less supply so it is a high-quantity doctrine. The issue with deep battle is that you can't really make use of the supply advantage unless you are either using low-quality divisions or doing a no-air build, both of these options have weaknesses. Especially with the nerf to NKVD, low-quality nature of deep battle can be a significant weakness due to reinforce problems. I usually prefer mass mobilization for Soviets as the safer choice with very high reinforce and recovery rate. SF and MW are also viable doctrines for Soviet if you want to play a tank-focused Soviet. SF is the riskier choice due to low org, low reinforce rate and low recovery rate but it has more punch per cost.