Mechanised infantry, worth composition?

[Otto of england]

I disagree on this point. If you are facing an enemy that has fielded a lot of armor, then adding AT to your INF divs is still a good idea even when it cannot, on paper, pierce the enemy armor. The thing is this: armor rating is dependent on the number of tanks present. As the enemy's armor units take losses due to combat and attrition, the number of tanks in each division will fall, dragging down the armor rating with it. Having AT in your infantry formations speeds this process, since the AT guns will still kill some tanks even when their piercing is too low to shed the armor/piercing malus....yet. But as you reduce the enemy's number of tanks, eventually their armor rating will fall to below your infantry divs piercing. And then the enemy had better withdraw those armor divs until they get replacement tanks, or expect to see them get thrashed by "mere" infantry.

You misunderstand me, what you describe is basically what I was stating. To try and restate it more clearly, I meant that if the piercing in the division is insufficient to piercing a tank division at 80-90% strength (the range a frontline division would be at after combat) then there was no point in them using the AT guns. Thus if you can't piercing a division with 65 armour that's been battle warn (so maybe 58 effective armour) then you shouldn't have bought the AT.

Well the x4 damage advantage when surpassing defense values quickly does become significant in situations when badly outnumbered though.

If we for example look at either Infantry+ Artillery and use 120-160 width worth of these (2-3 direction attack) overmanning a single 40 width tank/mec/mot division (when you stretch your enciclement to the limits) it should take significant damage.

Or if we use Tanks with SPGs instead which has lower HA values but higher SA so that the hardness added by MEC plays a bigger role.



I do agree with the basic conclusion here that Mechanized focused divisions are most of the time not worth their cost though.

Well a quick calculation (still don't have time for a better one, maybe in a couple hours or so) 160 combat width of infantry+artillery would have to exceed ~1100 soft attack (closer to 1000 if they have reasonable hard attack) to break the defence of the posted Motorized division. I'd have to do more in depth number crunching if I were to provide more insight though.

The other thing to keep in mind is with the motorized you can have just about twice the number of divisions [than mechanized] which is itself a huge boon.

 

[GeorgieBest]

You are both mistaken. The production cost (which is the MIC cost) for a single vehicle of any given model MEC is the same as the production cost for a single MARM tank of the model that is one year later. And the MARM's resource cost is MUCH higher, requiring lots of tungsten, steel and oil, compared to the MEC which only requires 2-3 steel, 1 oil, and 1 rubber. And one battalion of either unit requires 50 vehicles of the given type. Where their costs differ most strongly is manpower, with armor only requiring 500 while MEC needs 1200.

As to the wiki, read it again. The chart on the linked page clearly shows the total equipment cost for a MEC unit is 70 less than that for a MARM unit. (I think it is comparing MEC to previous year MARM instead of later year MARM, since their respective models are activated in alternating years.)



That's an opinion. Not a fact. Heck, MEC can produced in quantity before the USA even enters the war, so obviously one cannot say the war is already won beforehand.

I don't get it. I said that MECH cost 70 less than MARM. Did you misread my post? My point wasn't that MECH is more expensive than MARM, it was that it is not good enough to be such a close production cost to MARM.

http://www.hoi4wiki.com/Land_units_by_year

Look at the information for 1940 on that wiki page. That page is up to date for 1.3.
The production cost for 1940 mechanised infantry is more than 1940 MARM (granted this is MARM that is one year out of date). The resource cost is lower. This results in MECH having a slightly lower total cost than MARM. I don't think that is justified. Remember I wasn't comparing MECH vs MARM, I was using MARM as a comparison of the cost. The real comparison I was trying to make was 15 MARM: 5 MOT divisions vs 15 MARM: 5 MECH divisions, and in my opinion the point still remains that the cost difference doesn't justify the difference in performance.

I understand your point about different resources being used for different production lines making a difference, but then it becomes very hard to quantify things.

edit:

Here is the real comparison we want.

http://www.hoi4wiki.com/Land_units_by_unit#Mechanized_Infantry

http://www.hoi4wiki.com/Land_units_by_unit#Motorized_Infantry

Look at the stats for 1940, as that is the first year we see MECH.

MECH production/resource/total cost = 660/2,580/1,143
MOT production/resource/total cost = 185/555/289
Both units require 1,200 manpower.

Is that really a justifiable difference for you? Remember that every extra resource/MIC you spend on MECH is something that could have been spend on planes/ships/foot infantry divisions. What would be really interesting is if someone compared the total cost difference of the two divisions, and then measured how many CAS/fighters could be make from that production/resource difference. Because it wouldn't surprise me if the MOT/MARM division would beat the MECH/MARM division due to the additional Fighter/CAS support it would be able to utilize.

 

[Alex_brunius]

Well a quick calculation (still don't have time for a better one, maybe in a couple hours or so) 160 combat width of infantry+artillery would have to exceed ~1100 soft attack (closer to 1000 if they have reasonable hard attack) to break the defence of the posted Motorized division. I'd have to do more in depth number crunching if I were to provide more insight though.

Your probably right that it matters less for divisions like this where a majority of battalions are MOT. In a tank division though where you really want to push/maximize Armor/Piercing and swap MOT for MEC 1:1 then it is alot more useful due to the very large difference increase in defense ( Your example division shrink from 11 MOT to 8 MEC and still increase defense from 520 to 707 ).


Actually MOT/MEC divisions in general are not that useful in HoI4 since infantry can be strat redeployed at same speed and since ORG regain is so damn quick in HoI4 that they still can regain a significant amount even in a single day...

 

[GeorgieBest]

Actually MOT/MEC divisions in general are not that useful in HoI4 since infantry can be strat redeployed at same speed and since ORG regain is so damn quick in HoI4 that they still can regain a significant amount even in a single day...

But you can't use strategic deployment to progress through and capture enemy territory...The whole idea/purpose of Mobile (MOT/MECH) tank divisions is that they can progress and surround the enemy infantry quicker than they can retreat.

 

[Alex_brunius]

But you can't use strategic deployment to progress through and capture enemy territory...The whole idea/purpose of Mobile (MOT/MECH) tank divisions is that they can progress and surround the enemy infantry quicker than they can retreat.

No, that's the whole idea/purpose of TANK divisions

MOT/MEC divisions are not meant to attack (the job of tanks), MOT/MEC should only follow the tanks and defend (which strat redeploying infantry also can do).

 

[Stolen Rutters]

ILook at the stats for 1940, as that is the first year we see MECH.

MECH production/resource/total cost = 660/2,580/1,143
MOT production/resource/total cost = 185/555/289
Both units require 1,200 manpower.

Is that really a justifiable difference for you? Remember that every extra resource/MIC you spend on MECH is something that could have been spend on planes/ships/foot infantry divisions. What would be really interesting is if someone compared the total cost difference of the two divisions, and then measured how many CAS/fighters could be make from that production/resource difference. Because it wouldn't surprise me if the MOT/MARM division would beat the MECH/MARM division due to the additional Fighter/CAS support it would be able to utilize.

Interesting point.

In real life, it was found that your casualty rate for set-piece operations was significantly lower when using mechanized infantry, so it was added to keep the soldiers alive. In real life, it does indeed cost significantly more than motorized equipment. Still, it's a no-brainer to add at least some in any division at the front. Skilled warm bodies are harder to replace, so you build it anyway.

In game, we don't really care whether our soldiers live through the operations as long as the game is won. How do we capture the real need to keep your soldiers from melting away because we failed to invest in a mechanized spearhead force?

 

[Secret Master]

In game, we don't really care whether our soldiers live through the operations as long as the game is won. How do we capture the real need to keep your soldiers from melting away because we failed to invest in a mechanized spearhead force?

Make it harder to conscript manpower.

In HOI4, it's not hard to conscript more manpower than you need. I know some people whine about minors running out, but even in the hands of the AI, minors have plenty of manpower. And majors (except possibly the Soviet Union) have more than they really should.

I generally cared more about manpower in HOI3 than I do in HOI4. I lose 250,000 men, and I don't even care. I lose 1000 tanks or 1000 MECH, and I do care.

 

[GeorgieBest]

No, that's the whole idea/purpose of TANK divisions

MOT/MEC divisions are not meant to attack (the job of tanks), MOT/MEC should only follow the tanks and defend (which strat redeploying infantry also can do).

1. And what infantry are you putting with your tank divisions then? Because the division moves at the speed of the slowest division, and tank divisions don't have enough organisation/man power if you don't include some MOT/MECH in them.

2. Yeah, try strategically deploying infantry units into the pockets your tank divisions create and see how long they last with no organisation. It's possible this works against the AI, but do it against a person and they will instantly break your infantry units, and leave your advancing tank divisions without supply.

Interesting point.

In real life, it was found that your casualty rate for set-piece operations was significantly lower when using mechanized infantry, so it was added to keep the soldiers alive. In real life, it does indeed cost significantly more than motorized equipment. Still, it's a no-brainer to add at least some in any division at the front. Skilled warm bodies are harder to replace, so you build it anyway.

In game, we don't really care whether our soldiers live through the operations as long as the game is won. How do we capture the real need to keep your soldiers from melting away because we failed to invest in a mechanized spearhead force?

I agree with you that mechanised units are an improvement from motorised, which significantly improves your mobile/tank division efficiency. I also agree that mechanised infantry should be costing more than motorised. The problem I have is that mechanised infantry is of a comparable cost to medium armour brigades. That doesn't seem logical or realistic to me to be honest. I imagined they would cost around 2-3 times the amount of a motorised division, not 5 times the amount.

 

[Alex_brunius]

1. And what infantry are you putting with your tank divisions then? Because the division moves at the speed of the slowest division, and tank divisions don't have enough organisation/man power if you don't include some MOT/MECH in them.

As I have been pointed out myself a few times this discussion is not about Tank divisions with a few MOT/MEC in them, but about MOT/MEC divisions without tanks at all ( and their relative worth to eachother ).

Just because you put a few MOT brigades in a Tank division it doesn't magically transform to not be a Tank division anymore and a MOT division instead

2. Yeah, try strategically deploying infantry units into the pockets your tank divisions create and see how long they last with no organisation.

Since you can afford several times more of them then you can MOT/MEC or Tank divisions, and since they regain almost half their org in 24 hours they tend to perform very well in practice and I have been using this pretty extensively to beat both the AI and human players in all situations where the enemy don't instantly counterattack you. Infantry is intended for defense and this is what they are good at.

In game, we don't really care whether our soldiers live through the operations as long as the game is won. How do we capture the real need to keep your soldiers from melting away because we failed to invest in a mechanized spearhead force?

Isn't this exactly what division XP is supposed to model already? If it was better balanced such that MEC divisions in normal combat could increase their experience (due to lower casualties) while a MOT division in same combats would lose experience instead it might be possible to get it to work.

 

[GeorgieBest]

As I have been pointed out myself a few times this discussion is not about Tank divisions with a few MOT/MEC in them, but about MOT/MEC divisions without tanks at all ( and their relative worth to eachother ).

Just because you put a few MOT brigades in a Tank division it doesn't magically transform to not be a Tank division anymore and a MOT division instead



Since you can afford several times more of them then you can MOT/MEC or Tank divisions, and since they regain almost half their org in 24 hours they tend to perform very well in practice and I have been using this pretty extensively to beat both the AI and human players in all situations where the enemy don't instantly counterattack you. Infantry is intended for defense and this is what they are good at.



Isn't this exactly what division XP is supposed to model already? If it was better balanced such that MEC divisions in normal combat could increase their experience (due to lower casualties) while a MOT division in same combats would lose experience instead it might be possible to get it to work.

Unless I'm mistaken, this discussion is about if MECH is worth it compared to MOT. That is regardless of whether you are putting them into your tank divisions or making exclusively mobile divisions.

Suit yourself, I can't imagine playing against someone who would allow me to strat deploy into pockets within their lines without punishing me.

 

[Kaosium]

As I have been pointed out myself a few times this discussion is not about Tank divisions with a few MOT/MEC in them, but about MOT/MEC divisions without tanks at all ( and their relative worth to eachother ).

Just because you put a few MOT brigades in a Tank division it doesn't magically transform to not be a Tank division anymore and a MOT division instead

Why wouldn't you put a few tanks and variants in with motorized infantry? That would be like refusing to put AT and ART in leg infantry divisions, why would anyone do that? I think of the light TD as anti-tank guns on wheels and the light tank SPA and/or motorized rocket artillery as ART with speed. Thus when I'm done I have an infantry division which can move the basic rate of strategic redeployment (without org loss) and has the goodies necessary to fight everything but Medium/Heavy tank divisions, and usually they can hold their own well enough with those until my armor divisions catch up and dispose of them properly.

My favored position starts with a MOT template with 9 MOT with recon and support art. I (initially) usually add two LT-2 TD with maxed guns (thus 24 HA a piece) and two LT-2 tanks (for breakthrough and enough armor so second rate INF can't pierce) and add some LT-2 SPA or motorized rocket artillery and perhaps even support rocket art and AT to go with the requisite engineers. As that position includes a high command Cavalry general who gives a 10% bonus to MOT designs I have to be careful not to add too much and lose the MOT designation, but up until that point I give them all the goodies I can.

They are incredibly useful little critters. By the end of the war it usually turns out that my MOT has done the lions share of the fighting outside the grind on the fronts in the mountains and rivers as they get to everything so fast and have reasonable to obscene SA/HA levels they often just melt opposing forces before my tanks can even catch up, especially when I add 3-4 Motorized Rocket Artillery battalions to them. Both Grand Battleplan Assault and the Mobile Infantry side of the Mobile Warfare doctrine includes at least 25 bonus points to org for MOT so all sorts of goodies can be added and a reasonable final ORG still maintained.

Mech I find is just too expensive to use as anything but a replacement for my Motorized infantry battalions in (usually) my Heavy Tank divisions to buff out its values, increase hardness to 80% or more and push armor as high as I can. I usually have 6 HT with 4 MOT to start the war and later that will be up to 16 HT/4 Mech.

 

[Pro_Consul]

I don't get it. I said that MECH cost 70 less than MARM. Did you misread my post?

Yep, sure did. Apologies, dude.

 

[Secret Master]

Why wouldn't you put a few tanks and variants in with motorized infantry? That would be like refusing to put AT and ART in leg infantry divisions, why would anyone do that?

Sometimes you just want fast follow-on forces while the panzers advance. A division with just MOT is far cheaper than a division with armor and MOT.

As we learned in our last slog through Barbarossa and Turkey in MP, there are times when it might be helpful to have a fast division with infantry-style stats move in behind panzer divisions. If the panzers are trying to penetrate and hold the flanks of a pincer, it can get costly to hold the flanks.

As for refusing to put AT in infantry divisions, I've done it plenty of times, even in MP. Last time I did it, I don't think my opponents even noticed until the war was almost over.

 

[Kaosium]

Sometimes you just want fast follow-on forces while the panzers advance. A division with just MOT is far cheaper than a division with armor and MOT.

As we learned in our last slog through Barbarossa and Turkey in MP, there are times when it might be helpful to have a fast division with infantry-style stats move in behind panzer divisions. If the panzers are trying to penetrate and hold the flanks of a pincer, it can get costly to hold the flanks.

As for refusing to put AT in infantry divisions, I've done it plenty of times, even in MP. Last time I did it, I don't think my opponents even noticed until the war was almost over.

I find Light Tanks are so cheap I can usually dedicate maybe 3-5 factories to them to keep my MOT divisions filled and recruiting, with variants (and MOT RART) that will add up to maybe 10-15 total factories eventually, but I usually don't even notice by that juncture and I'll have dozens of Mot divisions in the field and training. With Mech I've found just keeping my handful of HT divisions in Mech means I have have to start with 10 factories dedicated to Mech and quickly expand that to 15 or I won't get enough mech in time to be useful for the war.

Turkey is one of the places I find my MOT really shines too, it probably doesn't even need all the goodies I give it, but with the (relatively) cheap armor and ART divisions added it overruns western Turkey so fast I'm usually surprised at how quickly they finish it. My problem there is getting enough supply available in Syria-Lebanon so I can maintain the force I want to keep there.

You don't have to add AT to INF, but if needed I'd guess you probably have the means to do so and wouldn't balk at doing so, why would it really be different for motorized infantry?

 

[Secret Master]

I find Light Tanks are so cheap I can usually dedicate maybe 3-5 factories to them to keep

I have done this in the past, but I wasn't really pleased with the results. Then again, I have a heavy bias against light armor for complicated reasons.

You don't have to add AT to INF, but if needed I'd guess you probably have the means to do so and wouldn't balk at doing so, why would it really be different for motorized infantry?

There's only so much IC and tungsten, even for Germany. The last time I played Germany in MP, every scrap of tungsten was going to ARM and ART. (Well, until the Allies bombed too many factories.) I just didn't have the factories to build all the tanks and artillery I wanted without giving up something else if I built the requisite AT.

I could have stopped AA production to free up factories, but I'd still be short on tungsten. And in that game, I felt the benefits of AA outweighed the benefits of AT; Soviet tanks never scared me. It was the Allied and Soviet air forces that were causing me the most trouble.

 

[Alex_brunius]

Why wouldn't you put a few tanks and variants in with motorized infantry?

I sometimes do but then it is by definition no longer a motorized infantry division, but instead a tank division, at least using my definition

When I write motorized division I mean a division with motorized and 0 tank battalions ( and judging by the templates posted by others before in the thread I am not alone in this thought ).

Unless I'm mistaken, this discussion is about if MECH is worth it compared to MOT. That is regardless of whether you are putting them into your tank divisions or making exclusively mobile divisions.

Suit yourself

If you want to reply to my posts where I talk about motorized divisions, and then bring up something else you can suit yourself as well, but don't expect me to take your replies seriously.

 

[Kaosium]

I have done this in the past, but I wasn't really pleased with the results. Then again, I have a heavy bias against light armor for complicated reasons.



There's only so much IC and tungsten, even for Germany. The last time I played Germany in MP, every scrap of tungsten was going to ARM and ART. (Well, until the Allies bombed too many factories.) I just didn't have the factories to build all the tanks and artillery I wanted without giving up something else if I built the requisite AT.

I could have stopped AA production to free up factories, but I'd still be short on tungsten. And in that game, I felt the benefits of AA outweighed the benefits of AT; Soviet tanks never scared me. It was the Allied and Soviet air forces that were causing me the most trouble.

To start with at least France faces a more severe shortage of tungsten and I find the little I have to use on LT-TDs (with max guns) to be the best bang for the buck I can find. I recall reading of your experiences with light tanks and am not proposing that light tank divisions should be built en masse but that motorized infantry is improved with the addition of LTs, LT-TDs, LT-SPA and motorized rocket artillery just as leg infantry is, there's no real reason I can see to think of it any other way. Just like how some leg infantry doesn't need much or any goodies to perform its function it's certainly not necessary to add it to every motorized template, but the divisions you intend to use in combat are more effective with better equipment and the bang for the buck in this regard is worthwhile.

I've not used any AA as I've found it's entirely unnecessary for single player at least for repelling airpower and I've not yet found a use for it that's worth having yet another line to have to research on the ART page, though I take note of your comment and will perhaps try it sometime as tungsten is definitely a problem for France, especially when I want to go Free Trade as I love teching under it and sometimes do that just for the fun of it.

I sometimes do but then it is by definition no longer a motorized infantry division, but instead a tank division, at least using my definition

When I write motorized division I mean a division with motorized and 0 tank battalions ( and judging by the templates posted by others before in the thread I am not alone in this thought ).

My point was that I think of that as posting Infantry templates without AT/ART. There are some uses for those divisions in garrisoning and fighting lesser powers but for combat you want to add ART and AT to motorized just like you do for leg infantry.

 

[Alex_brunius]

My point was that I think of that as posting Infantry templates without AT/ART. There are some uses for those divisions in garrisoning and fighting lesser powers but for combat you want to add ART and AT to motorized just like you do for leg infantry.

And you can. TD/SPG are not Tanks.

Look at the Motorized division template posted which spawned my comments / this discussion, it's half TDs ( so many the game classifies it as a TD division ).

http://i.imgur.com/Z6isWlm.jpg

 

[Kaosium]

And you can. TD/SPG are not Tanks.

Look at the Motorized division template posted which spawned my comments / this discussion, it's half TDs ( so many the game classifies it as a TD division ).

http://i.imgur.com/Z6isWlm.jpg

As you note, the one you post is no longer a Motorized division, it's a Tank Destroyer formation, much like if you put too much AT or AA in a leg infantry division it will end up designated as Artillery. With this last patch China ends up with a lot of those for some reason later into the war, I've not yet figured out why.

I use LTs for breakthrough, motorized infantry needs help in that regard or they're too fragile I've found. However unlike the template you posted I always make sure to keep the motorized designation as my favored position has a Cavalry general who gives a 10% bonus to Motorized divisions. There is a happy medium between so many goodies you're no longer a motorized division and not adding anything of that sort at all.

 

[Alex_brunius]

I use LTs for breakthrough, motorized infantry needs help in that regard or they're too fragile I've found.

So don't use motorized for breakthroughs then but use proper tank divisions like I have been trying to argue the last 5 posts...

Feels like talking to a wall sometimes, so it's time for me to stop and say good night.