That 5th Brigade

[incognitus]

For the first time ever, I am about to research Superior Firepower. Now what? ^^

So far (as Japan) I am using almost exclusively two models of Corps:
Line Corps:
5 divisions á 2xInf,1xArt,1xAT
1 HQ division with 2xInf,1xArt

Guard Corps: (because Japan starts with so many of them, no I didn't actually build any)
5 division á 2xGAR,1xArt,1xAT
1 HQ division with 2xCAV,1xENG (I decided I won't to give me guard corps some mobility)

I have a total of 5 of those Guard Corps guarding the Soviet border and 10 line Corps, 6 of which are fighting in China and 4 are just on the way home after conquering Canada (delightfully easy, once you own the US^^)

Considering my setup, what would be the best 5th brigade for my divisions? A second Art? A third Inf? AA (just kidding)?

 

[marxianTJ]

ART is prolly for the best.

 

[incognitus]

So I'll add Art to all the divisions. Would you give the HQs an Art as well or an AT instead to bring them closer in performance to the line divisions? Then the combat divisions would have 2xInf,2xArt,1xAT and HQs have 1xHQ,2xInf,1xArt,1xAT...

 

[marxianTJ]

May as well if you intend to use the HQs to fight. More ART is always good as long as your enemy doesn't have tremendous air attack advantage on you (unlikely in Eastern Russia).

 

[Kovax]

Depends on your target. If you're facing China, AT is all but useless. If you're up against the Soviets, you'll want AT, but one is sufficient to get the Piercing stat, and beyond that you're probably better off with more Soft Attack than a bit more HA (an Armor division with ARM+MOT is still only about 50% hard or less, so your SA value will still be used at least 50% of the time). If Manpower isn't an issue, another INF brigade will toughen your divisions and increase firepower somewhat, and if it is an issue, ART will provide more firepower but not do anywhere near as much for your division's toughness/defensiveness.

Note that Hardness doesn't reduce the effectiveness of SA when it's used, it reduces the chance of using that SA value, and forces you to sometimes use the HA value. One point of attack value is one point of attack value, regardless of whether it's SA or HA. Unless you're facing a super-hard division (less than 50% softness, not built by the AI until the very tail end of the war), more SA is always better than more HA.

The bigger issue is that building those x5 divisions also means supplying them, and I'd rather run leaner x4 divisions, or even x3, in the more remote regions with poor infrastructure. That probably means upgrading SOME divisions to x5, and not others, as the local region requires.

 

[incognitus]

That makes a lot of sense. I'm already done with China and I'll leave the SU for (maybe) later. But let's say I don't want to tinker with my divisions, I want to build them once and then use them unchanged for the rest of my game. What is the best allrounder for that? I guess the strongest option would be, as you indicated, 3Inf+AT+Art whereas 2Inf+2Art+AT is the more MP friendly version. Since Japan has obscene amounts of MP (I have never dropped below 700 in the first 4 years of my campaign and I've already conquered the US and China, plus Australia, NZ and a tonne of minors...). So I guess 3Inf would be the way to go, although... which is heavier on MP? Inf or Art?

Also... what about Armoured Divisions? I am building 1Arm, 2Mot, 1SPArt at the moment, what should be the 5th?

 

[incognitus]

How would you feel about CAV/CAV/SPArt/ENG/AC Divisions for... offroad use, like Africa and such. The do have to be able to take on regular Inf divisions (British and Belgian), but need to be fast and not TOO heavy on supplies...

 

[Kovax]

That makes a lot of sense. I'm already done with China and I'll leave the SU for (maybe) later. But let's say I don't want to tinker with my divisions, I want to build them once and then use them unchanged for the rest of my game. What is the best allrounder for that? I guess the strongest option would be, as you indicated, 3Inf+AT+Art whereas 2Inf+2Art+AT is the more MP friendly version. Since Japan has obscene amounts of MP (I have never dropped below 700 in the first 4 years of my campaign and I've already conquered the US and China, plus Australia, NZ and a tonne of minors...). So I guess 3Inf would be the way to go, although... which is heavier on MP? Inf or Art?

Also... what about Armoured Divisions? I am building 1Arm, 2Mot, 1SPArt at the moment, what should be the 5th?

I don't see anything wrong with what you're already using, although I'd probably only put AT in half of my divisions to free up the slot for more ART or INF. INF gives you a lot more Defensiveness and Toughness and somewhat more firepower, at the cost of a lot of Manpower and moderate IC, where ART gives even more firepower, but not as much Defensiveness and Toughness, at a lower Manpower cost and higher IC cost. For Japan, I'd lean toward adding another INF instead of ART, since you clearly have the Manpower to afford it. Your IC can then be dedicated mainly toward facing the USN.

Basically, I don't see anything that REQUIRES a 5th brigade in your situation, and a lot of potential supply issues that call for leaner forces, and I'm doubtful that I'd even research the Superior Firepower doctrine in that situation. Your next probable challenge is likely to be the UK in Indochina and India, as well as the Commonwealth countries. They wont field a lot of armor, and your divisions are already reasonably prepared for the little that they do. The Soviets are a different story, and even your AT brigades may not be sufficient to pierce their tanks unless you research ahead.

 

[incognitus]

Supplies seem to be a major consideration then, I hadn't considered that, really. The reason why I gave an AT to every division is that my divisions often end up fighting alone (one of my division attacking/defending somewhere apart from the rest of the corps) and I find it always ends up being the one that doesn't have the AT when they need it. I guess it is wasted potential if more than one division in the same battle have it, but that's the price of convenience. Since you mentioned it, I noticed that in battles where not all divisions have AT, but the ones that do can pierce the enemy tanks' armour (like piercing 9, armour 8), the battle modifier for "Armour" or whatever it's called is still displayed, leading me to believe that all those divisions without their own AT still suffer from not being able to pierce.

I guess the way we are meant to play the game is to generally use one Corps per tile, right? I generally only use 2 divisions per tile, i.e. spread out a corps over three provinces. If I can beef up my division sufficiently, e.g. by adding a 3rd INF, I might actually be able to pull that off better, because 2 divisions will have 6 INF in them and 3 divisions will have 9 INF.

What I am trying to get at, in terms of your supply concerns, is that the total number of INF brigades on the battlefield wouldn't increase, they would just be in fewer divisions. So instead of 12 Inf per Corps I would have 18 Inf per corps, but that means I would remove 1/3 of all corps (or rather relocate them to other theatres).

 

[Wraith11B]

I would avoid the ENG/AC combination: both are mobility/recon assets, and thus don't improve your Combined Arms. If you're in a low-infra region such as Africa, then you'll want to pick one or the other, but probably AC since it speeds up your division rather than ENG which only improves your combat penalties for terrain... that is to say, better to move faster than to worry about the combats (as there will not likely be terribly many).

 

[incognitus]

Good point. I just wanted to add, that ENG give movement bonusses on some terrain. I'd have to check to be sure about others, but they definitely give a bonus in marshes. Not that that would help in Africa...

 

[Strategy-Fan]

Great division if you have superior firepower.
3mech.+art+anti-tank/tank killer
Mechanised. (poorly spelled) will face Inf. , anti tank tânks and art. is there to make life harder to the enemy.
Also,there should be combined arms bonus and division will have 7 attack points and 7 defencive.
Im using this as Japan too,against the Soviets.

 

[incognitus]

I had always assumed that 1 ARM and 2 MOT would be superiour to 3MEC, but I might be wrong of course...

 

[Makje]

i don't know how to say this nicely so i'll just say it: anyone who pairs MEC with ART or AT, should be fired. Hell if you pair 3 MEC with them you should be shot. MEC are the most expensive brigades in term of updates and very expensive in IC and supplies. They are worth it because of their speed. (yes they have good firepower and such too, but for that cost you could build a lot more INF which have a lot better better stats together) You pair MEC with M-ARM or L-ARM and if you have IC to burn with H-ARM (costs speed but one hell of a division). 3 MEC + SPART is a good fast division too, but if you are building that kind of expensive division then throw in a M-ARM for almost no extra IC and Armor and penetration and Combined Arms bonus.

ENG brigades are only moderately usefull. They may help a litttle by mitigating terrrain modifiers (fortresses, rivers and mashes), but they hardly have any firepower themselves. AC have superior firepower, costs less and have very reasonable terrain modifiers so they will be of more use more of the time.

CAV/CAV/SPArt/ENG/AC in North Africa... i have to wonder why you would put a good but expensive brigade as SPART with pretty bad brigades like CAV. upgrade the CAV to MOT and you have a good division. The ENG is useless in Nort Africa and therefor too expensive but a 2 MOT + SPART + AC division is pretty good there. Put CAV divisions where they belong: partisans and other backwater places that don't have any serious enemy divisions. Just ask the Poles how their cavalry worked out against modern armies.

 

[Strategy-Fan]

i don't know how to say this nicely so i'll just say it: anyone who pairs MEC with ART or AT, should be fired. Hell if you pair 3 MEC with them you should be shot. MEC are the most expensive brigades in term of updates and very expensive in IC and supplies. They are worth it because of their speed. (yes they have good firepower and such too, but for that cost you could build a lot more INF which have a lot better better stats together) You pair MEC with M-ARM or L-ARM and if you have IC to burn with H-ARM (costs speed but one hell of a division). 3 MEC + SPART is a good fast division too, but if you are building that kind of expensive division then throw in a M-ARM for almost no extra IC and Armor and penetration and Combined Arms bonus.

ENG brigades are only moderately usefull. They may help a litttle by mitigating terrrain modifiers (fortresses, rivers and mashes), but they hardly have any firepower themselves. AC have superior firepower, costs less and have very reasonable terrain modifiers so they will be of more use more of the time.

CAV/CAV/SPArt/ENG/AC in North Africa... i have to wonder why you would put a good but expensive brigade as SPART with pretty bad brigades like CAV. upgrade the CAV to MOT and you have a good division. The ENG is useless in Nort Africa and therefor too expensive but a 2 MOT + SPART + AC division is pretty good there. Put CAV divisions where they belong: partisans and other backwater places that don't have any serious enemy divisions. Just ask the Poles how their cavalry worked out against modern armies.

You're right...well not about shooting thig.(-:
But at the end of the war I've always seen majors using mech. rahter then armour.Thus,shouldn't be more logical for armour to spend more IC then mec.?And maybe I was wrong about art.,maybe eng. would be better in that division. Or am I wrong like a lot again?
And isn't it logical to place AT right next to the mec. As mec.a bad versus armour?

 

[incognitus]

Nobody was talking about North Africa here. I was talking about "Africa" and mentioned those Belgian and British parts that have huge provinces with absurd travelling times. The reason why I proposed CAV and not MOT is simply, CAV is much easier to supply, which can be a serious issue in Africa. Plus, since those divisions have to fight, but never seriously tough enemies, I feel CAV/CAV/SPArt/AC is a very cost effective, yet strong enough way of getting a fast-moving unit to conquer the heart of Africa.

For rebel duty I use CAV/AC divisions.

@Strategy-Fan : No, I think he meant that with MEC you should never use Art or AT, but SPArt or TDs

 

[Makje]

@Strategy-Fan I thought the shooting part would get the message across. I dont know what majors you mean at the end of the war, but i wil asume AI played majors... You are ofcourse smarter than the AI. The penetration mechanics in TFH are too important and Armor is barely more expensive than MEC so we know better than the AI default setups.
Incognitus already answered the solution: use the mobile variant of ART and AT: SPART and TD.

I never fight for the rest of Africa? in fact i have to wonder the Strategic gains of it. But if you were to fight in say the Congo then you would be dealing with Jungle/Forests/Mountains and lvl 4 - 2 infra. What would SPART and AC do there? Just 2 CAV + ENG would be better then. But really in that sort of terrain, low value and long marches i would try and use Marines if possible or else plain 3 INF.
CAV are OK in the Deserts and plains, that's why i assumed you meant North Africa which has value to fight over, especially the Suez.

CAV terrain modifiers

amphibious =    { attack = -0.40 }
mountain =      {
     attack = -0.10
     movement = -0.05
    }
hills =         { attack = -0.05 }
forest =        { attack = -0.05 }
jungle =        { attack = -0.10 }

INF terrain modifiers

(yes that is correct, no terrain modifiers for INF)

ENG terrain modifiers

    river = {

        attack = 0.6
        defence = 1.0
    }
    fort = {
        attack = 0.40
    }
    amphibious =    {
         attack = 0.4
    }
    marsh = {
        movement = 0.2
        attack = 0.2
        defence = 0.3
    }
    urban = {
        attack = 0.4
        defence = 0.6
    }
    mountain = {
        defence = 0.5
    }
    hills = {
        defence = 0.5
    }
    plains = {
        defence = 0.5
    }
    desert = {
        defence = 0.5
    }
    arctic = {
        defence = 0.5
    }

No terrain modifiers for ENG in jungle, forests or mountains, except for defense on mountains. There are some rivers there though

 

[incognitus]

@Strategy-Fan I thought the shooting part would get the message across. I dont know what majors you mean at the end of the war, but i wil asume AI played majors... You are ofcourse smarter than the AI. The penetration mechanics in TFH are too important and Armor is barely more expensive than MEC so we know better than the AI default setups.
Incognitus already answered the solution: use the mobile variant of ART and AT: SPART and TD.

I never fight for the rest of Africa? in fact i have to wonder the Strategic gains of it. But if you were to fight in say the Congo then you would be dealing with Jungle/Forests/Mountains and lvl 4 - 2 infra. What would SPART and AC do there? Just 2 CAV + ENG would be better then. But really in that sort of terrain, low value and long marches i would try and use Marines if possible or else plain 3 INF.
CAV are OK in the Deserts and plains, that's why i assumed you meant North Africa which has value to fight over, especially the Suez.

CAV terrain modifiers

amphibious =    { attack = -0.40 }
mountain =      {
     attack = -0.10
     movement = -0.05
    }
hills =         { attack = -0.05 }
forest =        { attack = -0.05 }
jungle =        { attack = -0.10 }

INF terrain modifiers

(yes that is correct, no terrain modifiers for INF)

ENG terrain modifiers

    river = {

        attack = 0.6
        defence = 1.0
    }
    fort = {
        attack = 0.40
    }
    amphibious =    {
         attack = 0.4
    }
    marsh = {
        movement = 0.2
        attack = 0.2
        defence = 0.3
    }
    urban = {
        attack = 0.4
        defence = 0.6
    }
    mountain = {
        defence = 0.5
    }
    hills = {
        defence = 0.5
    }
    plains = {
        defence = 0.5
    }
    desert = {
        defence = 0.5
    }
    arctic = {
        defence = 0.5
    }

No terrain modifiers for ENG in jungle, forests or mountains, except for defense on mountains. There are some rivers there though

Based on those stats, CAV is still faster than INF, because of the higher default speed. Even upgraded CAV like Japan starts with (I think lvl 3 or 4 across the board) still moves at 5.82 kmph as compared to 4 for INF. So even when factoring in the tiny penalties they get in some terrains, they are significantly faster than INF. Or to put it differently: The is no terrain in which CAV is slower than INF (unless you have researched so many CAV techs, that they will get really slow).

And the reason why I want to conquer the rest of Africa is twofold. One, I'm a completionist. I cannot stand having enemy patches of land in my territory. Two, those Belgian/British/French stragglers can actually leave their provinces and molest you / conquer your coastal territories, etc. This is why I like to take a small number of low-maintenance units to chase them down and "mop up" Africa.

The SPArt... yeah, I guess you are right. My reasoning was just that with it my CAV has higher chances of defeating enemy INF than without.

 

[Kovax]

ENG give movement bonuses (or rather, reduce penalties) in river crossings and a few other situations, such as frequently found in France and the western Soviet Union. Those situations are not going to be frequent in Africa, and AC will normally make a lot more sense. HOI3 gives you a variety of different tools for different purposes, but doesn't stop you from wrecking your wrench by misusing it as a hammer.

 

[Makje]

Actually the only movement bonus ENG ever give is in the marshes (0.2). They do give an attack bonus (or reduce penalties as you said) crossing rivers. In this case rivers give a base penalty of 0.6 and engineers give a bonus of 0.6. So a divison solely made of ENG would have no penalties attacking across rivers (and no width)... Offcourse in a 3 INF + 1 ENG division that will leave an attack penalty across rivers of 0.45 or 45% for the division. So 25% of your brigades bring close to no soft attack and a 15% reduction in penalty, i really am not impressed in using ENG for rivers. High level forts (9% penalty per level), that is where ENG shine, and rivers defensively (i hate being on defense)