The 5th Brigade

[ltccone]

My German forces are this:

INF divisions - 2xINF+2xART
Panzer divisions - ARM, 2xMOT, SPART
Lt. Panzer divisions - 2xLARM+2xAC
Mot. INF divisions - 2xMOT+2xTD
Mtn divisions - 4xMTN
MAR divisions - 4xMAR

I've really been thinking about what value a 5th brigade would add to any of these builds, and I'm stumped...

 

[feye1]

INF divisions - 2xINF+2xART

INF INF INF ART ART / INF INF ART ART AT

Panzer divisions - ARM, 2xMOT, SPART

ARM MOT MOT TD SPART / ARM MOT MOT SPART AC

Lt. Panzer divisions - 2xLARM+2xAC

LARM LARM AC AC AC?

Mot. INF divisions - 2xMOT+2xTD

MOT MOT SPART SPART/AC TD / MOT MOT SPART TD ENG?

Why two TD?

Mtn divisions - 4xMTN

Nothing imo.

MAR divisions - 4xMAR

Nothing imo, might add an engineer though. Or as soon as they landed add an AT brigade so it can hold off some kind of ARM till reinforcements arrive (assuming u invade territory and no island).

So many options you can do

 

[ltccone]

Thanks! I don't remember why I thought 2 TDs were a good idea... Probably a holdover from before the hardness rules changed.

 

[21oliver]

I am no longer a proponent of 5 brigade divisions, i prefer the extra divisions. I tend to keep it simple (INFx2 ARTx1 ATx1 or INFx3 ARTx1 / ARM MOTx2 SPART or HARM MOTx2 SPART). MTNx4... I never build MAR anymore or MECH, or TDs. I play SP on Norm and quite frankly they aren't needed. I usually have everything beaten before Mech is researched.

 

[Kagernaut]

5th brigade should always be one that is dfferent from the others---in other words, increases your CA effect.

Example:

Light Tank Division with Sup Fire

1 LARM
1 MOT (or Mec)
1 AC
1 SPART
1 TD

There is 5% for each brigade, alone without leader traits thats a +25% Combat Efficiency, with leader traits stacked in each corps and army HQ and all the way up it can amount to 35% or 40%. Thats incredible when you think about it.

If you aren't going for CA (which you REALLY SHOULD as Germany), then add a brigade that makes your unit more versatile or resilient---ie, add an engineer for speed and also for river crossings, or AC for speed and (most importantly) lower softness.

Also, it should always be a support brigade you add---support brigades are the key to using less manpower, and using support brigades with low softness is the key to having less casualties in combat.

 

[feye1]

I am no longer a proponent of 5 brigade divisions, i prefer the extra divisions. I tend to keep it simple (INFx2 ARTx1 ATx1 or INFx3 ARTx1 / ARM MOTx2 SPART or HARM MOTx2 SPART). MTNx4... I never build MAR anymore or MECH, or TDs. I play SP on Norm and quite frankly they aren't needed. I usually have everything beaten before Mech is researched.

I really don't know why you something like that mention that in every thread. Yes WE KNOW the AI sucks. But:

1. Not all players can beat the AI.
2. Not all players play on normal, so it's slightly harder.
3. People give them selve restrictions.
4. People just want to have fun and extend wars.
5. People play multiplayer.

Also, a fifth brigade can be very useful. It can make your army much more powerful at some places. Another support brigade is just always good. And CA bonus..

Btw Oliver, I invite you to play some mp games with/against me (and possibly friends). I can play whenever we have time..

 

[msaaim89]

Btw Oliver, I invite you to play some mp games with/against me (and possibly friends). I can play whenever we have time..

Have you managed to find a reliable group? Last time I joined your group people were taking days off all the time.

 

[feye1]

Have you managed to find a reliable group? Last time I joined your group people were taking days off all the time.

What group was that? I remember we played yes. Must be that one on mondays. Oh dear, there were some people that never showed up etc. Some nice people in there, but some better stay away from multiplayer at all.

Currently we are doing good yes. Hope we can keep it this way

 

[sgt.stickybomb]

wait why is having two TD bad?, wont it increase your hard attack knocking armor faster?

 

[feye1]

wait why is having two TD bad?, wont it increase your hard attack knocking armor faster?

It does, I'm not saying it's very bad, but it's better used in another division. Unless you have specific use for it ofcourse.. but as standard set up don't go 2 TD, stick with 1.

 

[Pro_Consul]

(re:5th MAR brigade)Nothing imo, might add an engineer though. Or as soon as they landed add an AT brigade so it can hold off some kind of ARM till reinforcements arrive (assuming u invade territory and no island).

Actually the 5xMAR build is single most effective build there is for generalized use in amphibious forced entry assaults. For overcoming a high level coastal fort, you might do better to swap the 5th MAR for an ENG; and for hitting shore-based armor you might sub in an ARM or HARM brigade. But otherwise the 5xMAR is the most efficient and effective seaborne invasion build there is. The same is true with airdrops, and without exceptions in that case, i.e. 5xPAR is the most efficient and effective overall build.

But to go back to the OP's root question: in general the value of the 5th brigade is usually one of two things. It either lets you add a third combat brigade to a binary build, thus giving the division much better staying power for stand up fights. Or it lets you add a third support brigade to binary builds (or a second one to trinaries), thus giving you a higher firepower-to-frontage ratio. The downside of the trinary approach is higher manpower cost, or to put it another way lower division count per amount of MP allotted. The downsides for the binary approach are generally higher supply requirements, which can strain long logistical lines, and the potential for stacking penalty issues if you try to max your frontage.

So it's a tradeoff either way, but whether it is better to use either of those 5 brigade models, use a 4 brigade model, or do something else entirely, is 100% situational.

I am with you on the MTN, though in my experience I prefer the 3xMTN build. But that is just my preference for greater flexibility in handling a greater number of smaller tasks with the same overall number of brigades. But 4xMTN has it advantages as well.

 

[Less]

Unless you need to split divisions to cover a larger front there's no reason not to deploy 5-brigade divisions. The way that combined arms, defense stats, frontage and stacking penalty work means that a 5-brigade division will fight much more effectively than a 2-brigade + 3-brigade.

 

[Jon5738]

My american divisions are usually:

Pacific (against the japanese primarily):
LARM
INF
INF
ART
+sometimes AT (often not necessary on the pacific)

European front:
HARM
INF
INF
ART
AT

Marines:
5 MAR

Support division:
INF
ART
ENG
AA

Mountaineers:
Usually 5 x MNT

Rangers:
Usually 5 x RNG

 

[ltccone]

Actually the 5xMAR build is single most effective build there is for generalized use in amphibious forced entry assaults. For overcoming a high level coastal fort, you might do better to swap the 5th MAR for an ENG; and for hitting shore-based armor you might sub in an ARM or HARM brigade. But otherwise the 5xMAR is the most efficient and effective seaborne invasion build there is. The same is true with airdrops, and without exceptions in that case, i.e. 5xPAR is the most efficient and effective overall build.

But to go back to the OP's root question: in general the value of the 5th brigade is usually one of two things. It either lets you add a third combat brigade to a binary build, thus giving the division much better staying power for stand up fights. Or it lets you add a third support brigade to binary builds (or a second one to trinaries), thus giving you a higher firepower-to-frontage ratio. The downside of the trinary approach is higher manpower cost, or to put it another way lower division count per amount of MP allotted. The downsides for the binary approach are generally higher supply requirements, which can strain long logistical lines, and the potential for stacking penalty issues if you try to max your frontage.

So it's a tradeoff either way, but whether it is better to use either of those 5 brigade models, use a 4 brigade model, or do something else entirely, is 100% situational.

I am with you on the MTN, though in my experience I prefer the 3xMTN build. But that is just my preference for greater flexibility in handling a greater number of smaller tasks with the same overall number of brigades. But 4xMTN has it advantages as well.

I like 4xMTN, because there are just not enough commando leaders for more MTN divisions.

 

[Pro_Consul]

I like 4xMTN, because there are just not enough commando leaders for more MTN divisions.

Unless you are using them in a place where they are going to spend time out of supply, commando leaders are superfluous. They make sense for marines and paras, who could readily find themselves out of supply while either trying to get a port captured or establish a connection with the land forces, respectively, but presumably your MTN troops are operating where you have supply lines for them.

 

[Kagernaut]

Unless you are using them in a place where they are going to spend time out of supply, commando leaders are superfluous. They make sense for marines and paras, who could readily find themselves out of supply while either trying to get a port captured or establish a connection with the land forces, respectively, but presumably your MTN troops are operating where you have supply lines for them.

Agreed, although sometimes you might have poor supply in an area, thats never something to plan for. Commandos are pretty useless IMO.

Back to the topic though, I do use homogenous SF divisions---all MTN or all MAR divs. They are more effective, since in landings nothing performs as well, and same for mountains.

 

[ltccone]

Unless you are using them in a place where they are going to spend time out of supply, commando leaders are superfluous. They make sense for marines and paras, who could readily find themselves out of supply while either trying to get a port captured or establish a connection with the land forces, respectively, but presumably your MTN troops are operating where you have supply lines for them.

I attack the USSR through the Caucasus, and the supply situation there is never good. The infrastructure in E. Turkey sucks, and it isn't great in the USSR either.

 

[Pro_Consul]

Still not really following the logic. If you are building larger divisions because you are employing them in a poorly supplied AO and feel the need to combat that supply handicap with a limited number of commando leaders....that seems like solving a problem that only existed because your adaptation to another problem made that problem worse. Perhaps if you moved to a trinary or even binary build and/or used logistics wizards, then your units would not be going out of supply at all. That would certainly make them more combat effective than a larger unit with a commando leader that is out of supply. Like Kagernaut said, planning to be out of supply is not a very effective strategy for ground forces. Planning how not to be out of supply makes a lot more sense.

 

[Lord Curlyton]

In response to the OP: it really boils down to where and what sort of fighting you plan to do. As Team Western Allies, I generally try and bulk up to 5 brigade division ASAP, as my usual primary Theater will be Western and Central Europe, which has many large ports and generally great infra, and the German units are going to be no slouches, so every advantage each division of mine can get is critical. Especially as the Americans, if I play historically and don't start a proxy war to grind XP for my unit commanders then my leaders will generally be far outclassed by German ones so I need to ensure my individual divisions can go toe to toe with German ones. I love the SM build (ARM/3xMAR/ENG) as the US and as the US has IC and LS to spare, I sometimes make them my "line" divisions and use my "armored" divisions as ARM/MECHx2/AC/[AC/TD/SPART] (depending on whether I want a specialized or fast division). I personally think people get way too concerned with maxing the CA bonus and just make relatively unwieldy divisions that a sleeker division that might lack a 5% bonus (easily overcome) from its total CA amount would beat handily.

Of course, when playing as the Germans or Soviets I use 4 brigade divisions, as I will almost certainly be fighting in poor infra situations, have a larger front to cover, and will also have to shepherd my officer ratio somewhat (especially as Soviets), and 5 brigade divisions in a quantity sufficient to fight Barbarossa will eat officers swiftly. Also, I'm more prone to using less supply/fuel intensive divisions (I'll even sprinkle some 4xINF for doing dirty work in shitty areas), so I tend to use a lot of 3xfrontline/1xsupport divisions. Try running an army or two of 5 brigade divisions into Moscow and you will run out of supply or fuel, guaranteed.

In general, adding a 5th brigade to your builds specifically would make them either more durable or have a greater concentration of firepower at the cost of each div being more logistically intensive and officer heavy. However, not using 5 brigades is a completely viable option as well, and really boils down to personal preference.

 

[Jazumir]

5x MAR / MTN have the advantage, that they stack nicely - you never waste frontage, when attacking exclusively with these.
E.g. when using 4x MTN, you can get a max of 3 in a single-directional attack, which means 12 brigades.
When using 5x MTN you can still get only 3 divs in, but those bring 3 brigades more, totaling 15.
And since new directions just mean more multiples of 5 for frontage, this never changes.