How many divisions in a corp? What do you think? So far, I have 3 divsions in a corp. And I have an HQ for every 4 corps. The only problem is that I am wasting MJ Genrals. What do guys you suggest ?
-
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.
It's really a preference thing. Depending on their purpose, I tend to vary anywhere from 3 to 12 divisions in a stack. Garrison and specialist forces (such as the Inf-E's I often deploy along the French beaches as germany) tend toward 3 or 4, while I might put normal infantry on the Eastern Front in twelves. Tanks I tend to put in fives and sixes...
Yeah, really depends on what country you play and where you are fighting. As Italy I usually have quite a few single-division corps for beach garrisons or 'tripwire' troops with some fast 3-divisions corps ready to go act as a fire brigade. Playing as the Soviets I tend to use infantry armies of 12 divisions each and tank armies of 6 divisions each on the German border, but use smaller corps for fighting in Romania and Finland.
I'm pretty newto this game, so there's a lot I still don't get. That said, why would it ever be to your advantage to not outnumber enemy units by as much as you can - which would mean stacks of 9-12, whenever possible?
Stark
Stark
Steel said:
All divisions fighting in a province are automatically combined so the size of the stacks does not matter. There are generally a few factors to considers:
1) the number of divisions at full effectiveness in a province is 24. Either for defense or for attacking out of one province into another.
2) Do not stack past the command limits. Ignore the FM doubling effect. Read Fiendix's Leader Effects FAQ carefully.
3) Have a FM in or adjacent to any battle.
4) Attacks from as many directions as possible.
5) Stack divisions by speed and by type. Do not mix except for Panzers with Mech Inf since both are hard targets and can have the same speed.
If you follow those rules then you will generally be very effective in battle. You can have a lot of generals commanding small stacks in a province so that they gain experience which leads to either better fighting ability or to promotions. Or you can use your best leaders with bigger stacks to get the most effective attacks. Circumstances will dictate what works best.
1) the number of divisions at full effectiveness in a province is 24. Either for defense or for attacking out of one province into another.
2) Do not stack past the command limits. Ignore the FM doubling effect. Read Fiendix's Leader Effects FAQ carefully.
3) Have a FM in or adjacent to any battle.
4) Attacks from as many directions as possible.
5) Stack divisions by speed and by type. Do not mix except for Panzers with Mech Inf since both are hard targets and can have the same speed.
If you follow those rules then you will generally be very effective in battle. You can have a lot of generals commanding small stacks in a province so that they gain experience which leads to either better fighting ability or to promotions. Or you can use your best leaders with bigger stacks to get the most effective attacks. Circumstances will dictate what works best.
john heidle said:
It matters if one of your division is losing strength. You can't withdraw it alone if it was part of a Corps.
Okay, that's useful. But I saw people talking about setting up stacks of 3 or 4 units. What I don't get is why sending your soldiers into battle in such small numbers would be to your advantage? If your leaders can handle more (and I never put in the field any leader who is lower than a general, so all of mine can lead 9 div.) what's the advantage to going with as few as 4?
Stark
Stark
john heidle said:
In some cases you don't need 9 divisions, or can't afford it. With heavy (level 4+) coast fortifications, 3 or 4 infantry divisions with engineers can hold a beach against almost anything. Having another 5 divisions there would just be overkill.
Personally, when I'm on the offensive, I promote the leaders of all armies-in-motion to FM beforehand. The only armies I have run by generals or lt. generals are garrison troops, and even those I make sure that they're adjacent to a garrison with an FM. (You can garrison all the beaches of France, 11 of them, with only 4 FM's.)
Personally, when I'm on the offensive, I promote the leaders of all armies-in-motion to FM beforehand. The only armies I have run by generals or lt. generals are garrison troops, and even those I make sure that they're adjacent to a garrison with an FM. (You can garrison all the beaches of France, 11 of them, with only 4 FM's.)
starkfist said:
There is also the question of mobility or elasticity or whatever you want to call it
o . EX: 8 stacks of 3 divisions spread over 3 provinces vs 2 stacks of twelve covering the same 3 provinces. See what I'm getting at?
The key is having a good balance of both kinds depending of which country you play. My attacking forces are usually stacks of 12 or 9 and I keep stacks of 3 (usually infantry) to fill in the holes and to garrison. I sometimes also garrison with only 1 infantry if I have enough coastal defence (usually when I play Italy to guard the Mediterranean) but in that case, I make sure I have "fast" stacks of 3 nearby in case of a big landing. That way I save on divisions but it requires more micro-management and to keep a real close eye on every enemy move.
Example of using small stacks: As Germany I annexed Denmark and put 5 plain inf div in Aarhus which usually gets a lot of attacks from Britain. I broke them up into one two div corps headed by a Lt Gen skill level 2 and three single div corps each headed by a Level 1 FM (low ranking Generals promoted to FM).
Within about a year the three level 1 FM gained enough experience to become level 3 FM. During that time the Lt Gen skill level 2 gained another skill level. All leaders were rotated out when they reached skill level 3 and another bunch in the same configuration took their place.
Instead of Reinhardt (panzer trait) being a General skill 2 he's now a FM skill 3 which puts him in the second highest tier of my German panzer generals. And that was achieved without risking expensive panzer div. Now that he's a FM skill 3 he can have his own Panzer corps.
If I instead put Reinhardt in charge of all 5 div then the other three leaders would have gained no experience. If you can put up the micromanagement and pick the right spots it's sometimes useful to use very small corps.
Within about a year the three level 1 FM gained enough experience to become level 3 FM. During that time the Lt Gen skill level 2 gained another skill level. All leaders were rotated out when they reached skill level 3 and another bunch in the same configuration took their place.
Instead of Reinhardt (panzer trait) being a General skill 2 he's now a FM skill 3 which puts him in the second highest tier of my German panzer generals. And that was achieved without risking expensive panzer div. Now that he's a FM skill 3 he can have his own Panzer corps.
If I instead put Reinhardt in charge of all 5 div then the other three leaders would have gained no experience. If you can put up the micromanagement and pick the right spots it's sometimes useful to use very small corps.
I would stay with the 3-division corp. It's very flexible and cuts down on the micromanagement.
First things first though, you need to get into the leader text files for the country you are going to play and copy/paste that info into excel. then you can use nested match/index/find statements to ferret out each leaders ability easily. Once you've done this you can easily sort them and pick the best ones for use in your upcoming game. Note: only use leaders with special abilities - skill can always be gained but abilities cannot. You'd be amazed if you've never done this before how many potentially good leaders a country has.
For example, Germany will have between 200 and 250 division for offensive purposes and another 50 - 100 divisions for defensive purposes which equates to 70 - 80 offensive leaders and 30 - 60 defensive leaders. Only use Def Doc leaders for defensive use. Mainly pick offensive doctrine for infantry corps and panzer leader for armor/mech corps. Always use all available trickster leaders. Avoid any leader with old guard.
Now that you've picked your leaders, organize them into infantry armies and tank armies. A typical tank army contains 2 - 4 corps while an infantry army is probably 4 - 8 corps. Print this out on paper, it will make your game much faster and easier. Make sure each army has at least one field marshal - promote if necessary. An offensive corp should always have 3 divisions while a defensive corp will have 1 to 3 divisions. Note that you should NEVER place divisions of differing speeds in the same corp.
During the game, ALWAYS promote any leader used up to at least LG - even defensive doc leaders that have only one division in command. The reason for this should be clear and I'll use Germany as the example. Germany cannot hope to hold all beaches in strength and have an offensive army remaining. The trick is to hold a few beaches in strength (those easily invaded) and put one division in all other beaches. If a one division beach is invaded, pause the game. You should have some divisions in Strat Redeploy. put 5 of these with the leader. Then fly a plane led by an air marshal adjacent to the beach. Now your LG leader can lead 6 divisions and no command penalty. This tactic is very quick and effective. You should also keep appropriate mobile reserves available that can respond with a few days as well. Of course the best mobile defense is a stack of bombers.
Back to the 3-division offensive corp. The nice thing about this is the flexibility it gives you. In addition when you do need to spread out, your leaders have experience. Promote leaders any time they reach skill 4. Skill 3 is reasonably effective and if you do this you will have many skill 4/5 FM by games end. This will ensure that the number of situations where you face stacking leader penalties will be minimal - you won't really even have to worry about it.
Where it is more effective from a micromanagement standpoint is that say you attack russia and you use 9 - 12 divison armies. Now you will be in a position where you have to break them down into smaller units to cover area which requires you to find a leader to lead the smaller formation. Then inevitably you end up repeating the process because you recombined them. All of this takes time and usually requires the pause button.
Also using 9-12 division armies probably means you didn't research the leaders for a country prior to playing them. It's always easy to pick out the 20 outstanding generals.
To sum up these scattered thoughts: 3 division corps are the most flexible and when leaders are researched prior to play, ensures that you are always using the best leaders. In addition, you don't have to slow your play down by constantly breaking larger armies down and then recombining them. You can still attack a province using many different leaders coming from the same province so there is no benefit to bigger stacks. All in all you'll have the best army possible from a leader standpoint and also a flexible army and also less micromanagement.
First things first though, you need to get into the leader text files for the country you are going to play and copy/paste that info into excel. then you can use nested match/index/find statements to ferret out each leaders ability easily. Once you've done this you can easily sort them and pick the best ones for use in your upcoming game. Note: only use leaders with special abilities - skill can always be gained but abilities cannot. You'd be amazed if you've never done this before how many potentially good leaders a country has.
For example, Germany will have between 200 and 250 division for offensive purposes and another 50 - 100 divisions for defensive purposes which equates to 70 - 80 offensive leaders and 30 - 60 defensive leaders. Only use Def Doc leaders for defensive use. Mainly pick offensive doctrine for infantry corps and panzer leader for armor/mech corps. Always use all available trickster leaders. Avoid any leader with old guard.
Now that you've picked your leaders, organize them into infantry armies and tank armies. A typical tank army contains 2 - 4 corps while an infantry army is probably 4 - 8 corps. Print this out on paper, it will make your game much faster and easier. Make sure each army has at least one field marshal - promote if necessary. An offensive corp should always have 3 divisions while a defensive corp will have 1 to 3 divisions. Note that you should NEVER place divisions of differing speeds in the same corp.
During the game, ALWAYS promote any leader used up to at least LG - even defensive doc leaders that have only one division in command. The reason for this should be clear and I'll use Germany as the example. Germany cannot hope to hold all beaches in strength and have an offensive army remaining. The trick is to hold a few beaches in strength (those easily invaded) and put one division in all other beaches. If a one division beach is invaded, pause the game. You should have some divisions in Strat Redeploy. put 5 of these with the leader. Then fly a plane led by an air marshal adjacent to the beach. Now your LG leader can lead 6 divisions and no command penalty. This tactic is very quick and effective. You should also keep appropriate mobile reserves available that can respond with a few days as well. Of course the best mobile defense is a stack of bombers.
Back to the 3-division offensive corp. The nice thing about this is the flexibility it gives you. In addition when you do need to spread out, your leaders have experience. Promote leaders any time they reach skill 4. Skill 3 is reasonably effective and if you do this you will have many skill 4/5 FM by games end. This will ensure that the number of situations where you face stacking leader penalties will be minimal - you won't really even have to worry about it.
Where it is more effective from a micromanagement standpoint is that say you attack russia and you use 9 - 12 divison armies. Now you will be in a position where you have to break them down into smaller units to cover area which requires you to find a leader to lead the smaller formation. Then inevitably you end up repeating the process because you recombined them. All of this takes time and usually requires the pause button.
Also using 9-12 division armies probably means you didn't research the leaders for a country prior to playing them. It's always easy to pick out the 20 outstanding generals.
To sum up these scattered thoughts: 3 division corps are the most flexible and when leaders are researched prior to play, ensures that you are always using the best leaders. In addition, you don't have to slow your play down by constantly breaking larger armies down and then recombining them. You can still attack a province using many different leaders coming from the same province so there is no benefit to bigger stacks. All in all you'll have the best army possible from a leader standpoint and also a flexible army and also less micromanagement.
NAM said:
Just want to point something out that I didnt notice before.
You say you make corps of 3 divisions and add that you waste MJ generals. I don,t know if it's a mistake on your post but MJ generals can command only 1 division each. For 3 divisions you need a LT general. Otherwise you'll have trouble in battle
Also remember smaller units land faster than larger groups of divisions, so if you want to seaborne invade with 6 units, you'll invade faster by making sure all 6 have decent leaders and landing them together as individual divisions rather than grouping them.
Otherwise on land the only reason not to have 12-stacks led by Field Marshalls is to get individual leaders more experience by breaking them up so more are in on the attack. Normally as Germany, for example, I conquer Poland and France with 12 tanks in the spearhead, but I break them up into 4 groups of 3 so Manstien, Rommel, Guderian and Kleist all get exp.
Otherwise on land the only reason not to have 12-stacks led by Field Marshalls is to get individual leaders more experience by breaking them up so more are in on the attack. Normally as Germany, for example, I conquer Poland and France with 12 tanks in the spearhead, but I break them up into 4 groups of 3 so Manstien, Rommel, Guderian and Kleist all get exp.
Patriotes1837 said:Just want to point something out that I didnt notice before.
You say you make corps of 3 divisions and add that you waste MJ generals. I don,t know if it's a mistake on your post but MJ generals can command only 1 division each. For 3 divisions you need a LT general. Otherwise you'll have trouble in battle
Sorry, I meant by "wasting MJ's" is that I wasn't using them.
danoh said:
It's also a bit more flexible ... When you have taken a province you can just leave one corps of 3 divs behind and move on with the other corps ... that leaves a sizeable defensive force in the newly conquered territory ... smaller sized corps also allow you to quickly bolster defenses in neighbouring provinces without having to constantly detach/reattach units or having to leave a province without defenses ...
Obviously you could also detach some divisions from a large stack ... but then you'd have to look for a suitable leader ... first of all you'll have fewer because playing this style will give you fewer experienced leaders and secondly you'll have to scroll through the list after every battle won ...
When you play out set-piece pre-planned offensives with limited objectives you can (or at least I do) select all the leaders first, bring everyone into position and then "unleash hell"
... only minor alterations are needed, no constant click-fest for creating new corps etc.maybe this increases micromanagement (haven't really noticed) but it does definitely increase gameflow ...
My MGs are guarding my beaches and are performing probing missions in low-infra provinces ... or simply become my junior LGs
(1 of my armies has 4 corps of 3 divs: 1 FM, 1 G, 1 bonafide LG, 1 MG promoted to LG)
Disgustoid said:
As matter of fact this what I do with all of my armies. I just wanted to get your opinion guys. Thanks guys
Sheridan said:
yep. i prefer to invade Poland with all my Corps have only one DIV in them. lots of experience is gained. even the "junior PL" leaders gain experience, as well as "junior DD, OD, etc." leaders gain experience. i promote early and only the lowest level generals will even need a promotion later in the game.
however, you need to realize what the tradeoff is. if you promote early, then (in effect) you are trading manpower for experience...
Well ... are you trading manpower for experience in truth? There is a fine line there and you can dance on both sides of it.
The added versatility, if used correctly, can save you more manpower than would otherwise be lost ... however by using the added versatility you find that the battle ends faster which in the end costs you very experience you are attempting to garnish :wacko:
I play mostly minor nations which by definition have manpower issues. I dance that line where I attempt to train my leaders but minimize my manpower losses.
Constant defensive warfare at key fortified areas is the way to go for leadership advancement if you can arrange it As Romania in CORE, my leaders get most of their experience holding Lwow (fortified) and Besserabia (fortified and rivered) from the Russians but I do get an early jump on advancing several low skill high special ability leaders defending my beaches from the Brits and associated colonies.
I also tend to draw out battles against lower tech minors deliberately to allow my leaders to gain skill which definately does cost me manpower however I turn around and use those same leaders against the Russians a few years later and I do not draw those battles out. So I suppose you could say I spend manpower for experience but I am careful about when and where I choose to do this to maximum the experience while minimizing the expense.
In the end I suspect I save far more manpower by how I choose to sacrifice manpower for experience in very specific situations and then in turn use those more powerful special ability leaders in tougher situations in the future.
Regards,
Kevin
The added versatility, if used correctly, can save you more manpower than would otherwise be lost ... however by using the added versatility you find that the battle ends faster which in the end costs you very experience you are attempting to garnish :wacko:
I play mostly minor nations which by definition have manpower issues. I dance that line where I attempt to train my leaders but minimize my manpower losses.
Constant defensive warfare at key fortified areas is the way to go for leadership advancement if you can arrange it
As Romania in CORE, my leaders get most of their experience holding Lwow (fortified) and Besserabia (fortified and rivered) from the Russians but I do get an early jump on advancing several low skill high special ability leaders defending my beaches from the Brits and associated colonies.I also tend to draw out battles against lower tech minors deliberately to allow my leaders to gain skill which definately does cost me manpower however I turn around and use those same leaders against the Russians a few years later and I do not draw those battles out. So I suppose you could say I spend manpower for experience but I am careful about when and where I choose to do this to maximum the experience while minimizing the expense.
In the end I suspect I save far more manpower by how I choose to sacrifice manpower for experience in very specific situations and then in turn use those more powerful special ability leaders in tougher situations in the future.
Regards,
Kevin
emphasis added.kakey said:
please realize that using promoted leaders early in the game means that the early battles will last longer because the leader skill level is lower. these longer battles give the leaders even more experience but at the cost of greater manpower loss. this is why i stated, "however, you need to realize what the tradeoff is. if you promote early, then (in effect) you are trading manpower for experience..."
that said, i agree with your analysis. that is why i use promoted leaders "en mass" early in the game, so that later in the game the leaders have more experience when it is more vital to winning battles (and, hopefully, more quickly to save manpower.) however, i do not know how much, or even if, any manpower is saved with this method of play... again, as i agree with your analysis, that is the way i play.