Does anyone use pure motorized or mechanized divisions? I usually always combine them with armour to get the combined arms bonus, but I've thought about adding some cheap, fast infantry. Is it worthwhile?
-
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 do, at least with motorized. I don't know if its worthwhile, but some it has some advantages. 3Mot cost lest to build and fuel than, for example, a 1LArm+2Mot division (supply is pretty much the same). Sure, they are weaker, but for a they work as explotation divisions in breakthroughs and to boost armour divisions with numbers.
Anyhow, I'm a flavour gamer. There were motorized infantry division, hence I use them.
What is not worth it? Adding motorized infantry to armour? That's not what afb asked about. Or making motorized unpure divisions with engineers or armoured cars?
pure mot, not really worth it I guess, you're probably want something to go with that, maybe like TDs for the combined arms bonus.
Best combined arms formation is probably something like 2xarm+2xspart, because it capitalizes on the spearhead doctrine tree bonuses, and has the practical values of arm, and art, and art practical can be used for infantry equipping as well. Where as mechanized are hideously expensive to tech, and raise practical values for, and motorized on their own are pretty weak units, and cavalry are pretty weak as well. Armor based mobile units have the advantage that less manpower is lost per battle damage incurred. Instead of divisions where the main components are infantry based, with increased frontage and less firepower which is bad for attacking obviously(Mot/mech doesnt benefit from spearhead tech).
On a side note, has anyone had any success with "pure" exploitation divisions? something along the lines of 3xAC or single AC brigades. The sight of actually seeing that work would be pretty... LOL, to say the least. Probably doesn't work so well against the A.I. which tends to spam all sorts of irregular units and HQs behind the battlelines, but they could take an unprepared human player by surprise, the fastest land unit in the game just racing across the empty fields
1xlarm+2xmot does become combined arms I think, if you skip an engine upgrade and favour armour to some extent, or maybe I'm thinking about 1xarm+2xmot. In any case, it's a pretty realistic division set up (germans used more light tank regiments early war though, compared to late war medium tank regiments), but lacks the max firepower to bear on the focal point of attack, due to increased frontage. Focusing the land practicals of your units does in a sense pay dividends, your infantry divs become cheaper with more firepower, when you build more arm and art based armors, which are pretty formidable divs on the offensive.
For a purely motorized army, I think that could only work with like UK or USA, it worked well in hoi2 I know USA could have a competitive army completely from mech/mot (and some marines). For UK it would be more difficult I think. In HoI3, sure you could upgrade your infantry brigades into motorized, but arguably you gain more firepower and killing power by upgrading your leg infantry into more modern infantry units and fit them with support brigades, and start working on heavy and medium armors.
I wonder how the cost of upgrade production of single brigades is worked out, if you produce a leg infantry straight into mechanized, it should be pretty expensive, but upgrading mot to mech should be quite a bit cheaper. In real life only the infantry squad transports need to become mechanized, in divisions like that, all artillery and logistics vehicles could be the same trucks that were used before, to some extent?
Best combined arms formation is probably something like 2xarm+2xspart, because it capitalizes on the spearhead doctrine tree bonuses, and has the practical values of arm, and art, and art practical can be used for infantry equipping as well. Where as mechanized are hideously expensive to tech, and raise practical values for, and motorized on their own are pretty weak units, and cavalry are pretty weak as well. Armor based mobile units have the advantage that less manpower is lost per battle damage incurred. Instead of divisions where the main components are infantry based, with increased frontage and less firepower which is bad for attacking obviously(Mot/mech doesnt benefit from spearhead tech).
On a side note, has anyone had any success with "pure" exploitation divisions? something along the lines of 3xAC or single AC brigades. The sight of actually seeing that work would be pretty... LOL, to say the least. Probably doesn't work so well against the A.I. which tends to spam all sorts of irregular units and HQs behind the battlelines, but they could take an unprepared human player by surprise, the fastest land unit in the game just racing across the empty fields
1xlarm+2xmot does become combined arms I think, if you skip an engine upgrade and favour armour to some extent, or maybe I'm thinking about 1xarm+2xmot. In any case, it's a pretty realistic division set up (germans used more light tank regiments early war though, compared to late war medium tank regiments), but lacks the max firepower to bear on the focal point of attack, due to increased frontage. Focusing the land practicals of your units does in a sense pay dividends, your infantry divs become cheaper with more firepower, when you build more arm and art based armors, which are pretty formidable divs on the offensive.
For a purely motorized army, I think that could only work with like UK or USA, it worked well in hoi2 I know USA could have a competitive army completely from mech/mot (and some marines). For UK it would be more difficult I think. In HoI3, sure you could upgrade your infantry brigades into motorized, but arguably you gain more firepower and killing power by upgrading your leg infantry into more modern infantry units and fit them with support brigades, and start working on heavy and medium armors.
I wonder how the cost of upgrade production of single brigades is worked out, if you produce a leg infantry straight into mechanized, it should be pretty expensive, but upgrading mot to mech should be quite a bit cheaper. In real life only the infantry squad transports need to become mechanized, in divisions like that, all artillery and logistics vehicles could be the same trucks that were used before, to some extent?
The upgrade cost is a fraction of the difference in required IC for the two brigades (I believe more than 100% of the difference). And the time is also a fraction of the difference between the construction time of the two brigades.
I actually had Medium Armour that upgraded to Heavy Armour in -17 days once because Medium tech had just increased, leaving Heavy lagging behind. So, instantaneous upgrade to heavy tanks!
I actually had Medium Armour that upgraded to Heavy Armour in -17 days once because Medium tech had just increased, leaving Heavy lagging behind. So, instantaneous upgrade to heavy tanks!
... On a side note, has anyone had any success with "pure" exploitation divisions? something along the lines of 3xAC or single AC brigades. The sight of actually seeing that work would be pretty... LOL, to say the least. Probably doesn't work so well against the A.I. which tends to spam all sorts of irregular units and HQs behind the battlelines, but they could take an unprepared human player by surprise, the fastest land unit in the game just racing across the empty fields
I've had quite good service from near pure exploitation divisions. These are 1LtArm+3Spart, this gives combined arms, high firepower and if you bias the techs specially a very fast division. I make a point of making the SPArt very quick so it doesn't slow things down. Once they have broken through they split up into component brigades and rush about occupying territory. It is best to keep them reasonably close together to remerge but this can be very effective producing broad swathes of occupied land instead of the usual narrow penetration into the deep rear.
When I am trying to surround and trap a pocket, I will generally use combined arms Armour + Mot, to lead the pincer in a leapfrog. To stop these getting cut off I follow with the pure Mot divisions, which hold the taken land against the two sided attacks that normally ensue.
Seems to work pretty well for me.
Seems to work pretty well for me.
I love Mech divisions, but not pure. You need to mix them up with support brigades. I usually like two Mech brigades mixed with a TD and a SPArt. Once I have Superior Firepower, I go with 2xMech, 2xTD, 1xSPArt. That is some real firepower. For example, my Italian Mech divisions in 1943 have these stats: Soft 25, Hard 19, Def 34, Tough 32, Softness 54%, plus you get the combined arms bonus. Remember with only 2 combat brigades and 2 width, 5 of these divisions can get into the battle across a single territory!
Unless you have leadership points to burn (any Italy certainly does not) you need to focus your research. You need to research Mech Offense to get to Combined Arms Warfare, and you need to to research Tactical Command Structure to get to Superior Firepower. Those essential tech branches improve the morale and organization of your Mech brigades along the way. But, if you want a strong tank army too, you need to add the expensive techs, Schwerpukt and Blitzkrieg.
As Italy, I cannot afford all of those research branches. So, I research light armor tech (which you need for Mech anyway), and I build a few light armor brigades early in the war to give my Motorized divisions a little punch, but I never research Schwerpukt and Blitzkrieg. So, those light armor units get outclassed by the middle of the war. Once I research the Mechanized Brigades, I abandon armor altogether and use those light armor brigades to chase Tito in the wilds of Yugoslavia. The real advantage to these Mech divisions (apart from speed) is the width. An Armor division (without Spearhead, another costly tech branch) will typically be 6 wide, only allowing 2 divisions to attack across a given territory border. You can build awesome armor units with narrow widths, but you need to add three or four more expensive research branches to get there.
With Mech divisions, I feel I can field a competitive force with less research.
In response to Laurwin, if you focus your army on Mot., then Mech., instead of armor, your mobile unit practical will shoot up. My example cited above, Italy 43, has a mobile unit practical of 33.0, whereas its armor practical is only 2.4.
Unless you have leadership points to burn (any Italy certainly does not) you need to focus your research. You need to research Mech Offense to get to Combined Arms Warfare, and you need to to research Tactical Command Structure to get to Superior Firepower. Those essential tech branches improve the morale and organization of your Mech brigades along the way. But, if you want a strong tank army too, you need to add the expensive techs, Schwerpukt and Blitzkrieg.
As Italy, I cannot afford all of those research branches. So, I research light armor tech (which you need for Mech anyway), and I build a few light armor brigades early in the war to give my Motorized divisions a little punch, but I never research Schwerpukt and Blitzkrieg. So, those light armor units get outclassed by the middle of the war. Once I research the Mechanized Brigades, I abandon armor altogether and use those light armor brigades to chase Tito in the wilds of Yugoslavia. The real advantage to these Mech divisions (apart from speed) is the width. An Armor division (without Spearhead, another costly tech branch) will typically be 6 wide, only allowing 2 divisions to attack across a given territory border. You can build awesome armor units with narrow widths, but you need to add three or four more expensive research branches to get there.
With Mech divisions, I feel I can field a competitive force with less research.
In response to Laurwin, if you focus your army on Mot., then Mech., instead of armor, your mobile unit practical will shoot up. My example cited above, Italy 43, has a mobile unit practical of 33.0, whereas its armor practical is only 2.4.
If you can reach 66% softness with only MECH, you can in fact try pure MECH-MECH-MECH(-MECH) divisions. I saw that a few times, but iirc I was using the ICE mod.
Apart from that: Always try to get combined arms. Always.
Although i rarely build mech anymore (no need for them in SP) and my only motorized units are usually MOT-TD divisions acting as a mobile reserves attached to each corps or at least army HQ.
Apart from that: Always try to get combined arms. Always.
Although i rarely build mech anymore (no need for them in SP) and my only motorized units are usually MOT-TD divisions acting as a mobile reserves attached to each corps or at least army HQ.
In the buildup I individually build bde and then combine them to form CA divisions. That increases the practical for motor and I build enough to form the CA/PZ divisions that I need. Sometimes this means that I have a spare motor div for a while. BUT my aim is always to build CA divisions due to that 40%+ CA bonus [20% for CA divison, 10% for Pz trait, 10%from a land doctrine tech]. I use these original divisions throughout the game: a CA division with 2 light armor + 2 motor works just fine, and it's slightly higher build cost is not significant enough to overcome that CA bonus.
Later on I build mech+light armor to get the fast CA divisions. For these, light armor bde are cheaper than mech, so I go for a 5 bde div with 4 light armor + mech to get the most hardness at the cheapest price. You really need to differentiate between motor + mech due to their massive price difference: motor is quite cheap while mech is very expensive.
Later on I build mech+light armor to get the fast CA divisions. For these, light armor bde are cheaper than mech, so I go for a 5 bde div with 4 light armor + mech to get the most hardness at the cheapest price. You really need to differentiate between motor + mech due to their massive price difference: motor is quite cheap while mech is very expensive.
interesting responses.
I was played a bit with USA yesterday, you really need to invest your manpower well with the US! Basically you have a huge existing WW1 infantry army, that is demobilized, as USA. So I think there's some options how to work with these troops and your limited manpower. I figured that I should probably use a 2xinf core for my infantry divs, works well enough for the Germans anyway. Problem was that I ran out of manpower trying to mobilize all my heavy infantry line divisions, comprised of 2xinf+2xTD, after three months I fully could mobilize all divisions!
I guess you could definitely work with the core structure of your American infantry army, motorizing and mechanizing it as you go. Problem is mainly that Americans start with pre-WW1 cavalry tech so they need quite a bit time until they can actually get even motorized divisions. Doctrinal emphasis would allow for a mech army to disregard spearhead for the most part, but you're still gonna want some TDs or SP-arty most likely (for combined arms), and the marines with their doctrines.
But the production cost from WW1 era leg infantry into motorized is still pretty steep, and motorized alone lack quite a bit firepower
Or you could just upgrade some infantries into mar,par,mtn and disband the rest, and build a gigantic tank army! For a country like USA I think it can really benefit the most from building basically pure combined arms army with specialized infantry, UK also to the same purpose, but it's a big hassle to upgrade and organize all your colonial stuff properly.
Britain has a similar situation, but they seem to be able to get a good chunk of manpower due to better army laws, from German threat behavior with Anschluss, Munich agreement and eating up the Czechs. With Brits ideally speaking you need a robust land army that doesn't get slaughtered in terms of manpower losses, especially considering how Brits are supposed to fight alone for some time against Axis. 2xarm+2xspart has great firepower, and doesnt cost a whole lot to reinforce in manpower, theyre even cheaper in officer cost as well.
I was played a bit with USA yesterday, you really need to invest your manpower well with the US! Basically you have a huge existing WW1 infantry army, that is demobilized, as USA. So I think there's some options how to work with these troops and your limited manpower. I figured that I should probably use a 2xinf core for my infantry divs, works well enough for the Germans anyway. Problem was that I ran out of manpower trying to mobilize all my heavy infantry line divisions, comprised of 2xinf+2xTD, after three months I fully could mobilize all divisions!
I guess you could definitely work with the core structure of your American infantry army, motorizing and mechanizing it as you go. Problem is mainly that Americans start with pre-WW1 cavalry tech so they need quite a bit time until they can actually get even motorized divisions. Doctrinal emphasis would allow for a mech army to disregard spearhead for the most part, but you're still gonna want some TDs or SP-arty most likely (for combined arms), and the marines with their doctrines.
But the production cost from WW1 era leg infantry into motorized is still pretty steep, and motorized alone lack quite a bit firepower
Or you could just upgrade some infantries into mar,par,mtn and disband the rest, and build a gigantic tank army! For a country like USA I think it can really benefit the most from building basically pure combined arms army with specialized infantry, UK also to the same purpose, but it's a big hassle to upgrade and organize all your colonial stuff properly.
Britain has a similar situation, but they seem to be able to get a good chunk of manpower due to better army laws, from German threat behavior with Anschluss, Munich agreement and eating up the Czechs. With Brits ideally speaking you need a robust land army that doesn't get slaughtered in terms of manpower losses, especially considering how Brits are supposed to fight alone for some time against Axis. 2xarm+2xspart has great firepower, and doesnt cost a whole lot to reinforce in manpower, theyre even cheaper in officer cost as well.
Do you get any practicals when upgrading? I don't think so? Fx when USA upgrades its INF to MEC will they get mobile practicals? If not that's a disadvantage of upgrading of course.
Just upgrading, the cost of upgrading a reserve brigade (in peace) is more than the cost of building a replacement reserve brigade. Most countries will be at war when the big upgrades are available so this bug is not well known.
my preferrence is making armored divisions and mech divisions.
for mech div, 3 mech brg, 1 eng brg, 1 sp art bg.
for arm div, 1 h arm brg (sometimes, though it makes it slower so I prefer a 3rd arm brg) 2 arm brg (somtimes 3), 1 mech brg, 1 eng brg (sometimes 1 sp art brg instead of eng)
I don't think I've yet to meet a div combination that can stop it.
so with that said, if you have full 4/4 (or later 5/5) divisions of all mot or all mech, I'd say it's a waste. if I do have all mot or mech, I will only have 3 brgs in the div, so I can add to it with armor or art or eng brgs later on.
for mech div, 3 mech brg, 1 eng brg, 1 sp art bg.
for arm div, 1 h arm brg (sometimes, though it makes it slower so I prefer a 3rd arm brg) 2 arm brg (somtimes 3), 1 mech brg, 1 eng brg (sometimes 1 sp art brg instead of eng)
I don't think I've yet to meet a div combination that can stop it.
so with that said, if you have full 4/4 (or later 5/5) divisions of all mot or all mech, I'd say it's a waste. if I do have all mot or mech, I will only have 3 brgs in the div, so I can add to it with armor or art or eng brgs later on.
Playing Germany I find no advantge of having mechanised over motorised.
My standard MOT division (3x Mot+1x TD) works very fine.
Armor is for breaktrough.
Motorised is for exploitation and follow up behing armor.
Mechanised is something in between,but thus a compromise.
However stadard motorised division 3xMot+1x TD can be later(1942) reinforced by upgrading 1 or 2 Mot. brigades into Mechanised(for instrance 2xMech1xMot,1xTD).This rises division to a level of Combine Arms bonus.
But this has an economical sense only after utilising cheap standard motorised division in early war,mostly after Bitter Peace when you have hughe IC that is wasted.
I am talking about Germany.
My standard MOT division (3x Mot+1x TD) works very fine.
Armor is for breaktrough.
Motorised is for exploitation and follow up behing armor.
Mechanised is something in between,but thus a compromise.
However stadard motorised division 3xMot+1x TD can be later(1942) reinforced by upgrading 1 or 2 Mot. brigades into Mechanised(for instrance 2xMech1xMot,1xTD).This rises division to a level of Combine Arms bonus.
But this has an economical sense only after utilising cheap standard motorised division in early war,mostly after Bitter Peace when you have hughe IC that is wasted.
I am talking about Germany.
Last edited:
As Germany always get the combined arms bonus. You have great generals with this bonus and once you reach the tech that grants even higher CA bonus your units become killing machines.
Those questions are the same, because of practical values you either want to use something alot or not at all.
Dividing your efforts into 4 land practicals instead of 3 is whats not worth it (INF+ARM+ART being the standard 3). Dividing out into a fourth means that either something else must become more expensive to build, or mot/mech will be VERY expensive to build if you save it for last.
Also, IIRC the only techs that a high motorized practical actually does improve research speed on are cavalry techs... which does not feel quite as interesting and effective as for example small arms or tank/artillery guns...
Another important reason why MOT/MECH are quite useless is because they don't work any better in their historical role as firebrigade divisions rushing in to fill gaps in your defences. Normal Infantry can do that equally well with strategic redeployment movements in up to 20KPH...
For Mechanized and Motorized:
No way, I use whatever fast units I can get to keep the aircraft off me, in regular Semper Fi, that means sacrificing speed for Anti-Air Protection. With common weps expansion i use mobile AA. Sometimes a pure division can be used but the problem is they have barely to none AA defense. Unless you feel the need to chase the front with AA emplacements in reserve I would combine them with other things.
No way, I use whatever fast units I can get to keep the aircraft off me, in regular Semper Fi, that means sacrificing speed for Anti-Air Protection. With common weps expansion i use mobile AA. Sometimes a pure division can be used but the problem is they have barely to none AA defense. Unless you feel the need to chase the front with AA emplacements in reserve I would combine them with other things.
In my opinion, the importance of high Practicals is often over-rated in single-player games. The effective size of your military isn't usually limited by how fast you can build them. More often, Manpower, Fuel or Supply efficiency is a constraint.
I generally go four four Practicals (Infantry, Artillery, Armor and Mobile) instead of three.
My armoured corps consist of 2 mot div(3 mot reg) and 2 arm div (2 arm + 1 mot). The speed of mot is higher than arm (9 and 8 miles per hour i think). In an attack I use one mot and one arm div. The mot div always gets there sooner. As soon as the mot div has arrived the two unused mot and arm div are ordered to move up to the same province and if possible after arrival attack the next province straight away. This time the mot div will be there even sooner than the arm div because its travelling through two provinces at 9 miles p/h..
The reason I have chosen for this composition is that the arm div gets the combined bonus and the mot gives me the speed i want. And especially in Russia speed is the key to create a breakthrough and encirlce your enemy.
I only construct mech div if I have IC to spare. I will buid them when they are available for my arm div though, replacing the mot reg for a mech reg. iTs only a small change in IC investment. Usually i dont upgrade my mot reg, to mech because that means withdrawing them from the frontline.
I use this tactic when playing Germany, England and the USA. For the other countries, havent played them in SF yet, in HOI3 it always depended on the chosen overall strategy and on the leadership available.