-
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.
Now that I had to restart my game because of a corrupt save, what is the best build for a medium armored division? I'm currently using ARM+MOT+MOT+SPART, but should I replace the second MOT with an ENG, TD, or AC for a better CA bonus?
I've avoided jumping into this discussion because I felt others were more or less doing a good job discussing the issue.
However, now that you are starting to ask more detailed questions, I'll just say that the strategy guide has a comprehensive discussion on division composition: http://www.amazon.com/The-Communist-Campaign-Karelia-Strategy-ebook/dp/B00FG9BSRY
The first thing I would say is that you have to ask the right questions. There really isn't any such thing as a "good medium armor division." Instead, you should always build divisions to fulfill missions in particular theaters and situations. Optimizing for speed in Western Europe is a completely different game from optimizing for speed in Manchuria. And while the CA bonus is tempting as a way to guide your optimization, there are times you want to do something else besides add another 5% to combat efficiency.
However, now that you are starting to ask more detailed questions, I'll just say that the strategy guide has a comprehensive discussion on division composition: http://www.amazon.com/The-Communist-Campaign-Karelia-Strategy-ebook/dp/B00FG9BSRY
The first thing I would say is that you have to ask the right questions. There really isn't any such thing as a "good medium armor division." Instead, you should always build divisions to fulfill missions in particular theaters and situations. Optimizing for speed in Western Europe is a completely different game from optimizing for speed in Manchuria. And while the CA bonus is tempting as a way to guide your optimization, there are times you want to do something else besides add another 5% to combat efficiency.
I believe a wise master, who is also very secretive, told me that the best division in any general situation is one with low softness and high soft attack---which can be best obtained in an armored division, using MEC/MOT and other support brigades like AC 
But yes, divisions should be designed based on the task. Ie, 4 X MAR for naval landings, max performance and strength in a naval landing, or 4 X MTN for mountains for similar reasons.
But yes, divisions should be designed based on the task. Ie, 4 X MAR for naval landings, max performance and strength in a naval landing, or 4 X MTN for mountains for similar reasons.
Actually 5xMAR is max performance and strength for forced entry assaults, unless you are facing a high level coastal fort or are failing to pierce defending armor, in which case adding ENG or ARM/HARM, respectively, as the 5th brigade would get you there.
This one is fungible for different reasons, but as SM said, is totally situational. Perhaps the MTN threat is not huge and is partly being managed by the terrain, while your ability to deliver supplies there is impaired. In that case 3xMTN or even 2xMTN might be the best build. Or perhaps the mountains you are attacking through are heavily defended and you need to bring maximum power to the battle line to crack the enemy's front, in which case 5xMTN would maximize your frontage and minimize your stacking penalty. All (or almost all) is changeable based not just on the mission but on when, where, against whom, and under what conditions the mission is being performed.
AFAIK, there is only 1 division build which is totally best for a particular purpose without regard to other factors like terrain, fort levels, supply lines, or enemy composition. That would be the 5xPAR for paradrops. And that is a simple matter of the facts that only PAR can drop in the first place, and 5x (as opposed to 4x or less) gives them the best ability to succeed where failure means unit destruction. 5x also factors most efficiently with multi-division ops, since it is never excelled in maximizing frontage or minimizing stacking penalties, like I mentioned before.
Thanks for the answer. I'll pick up that guide. As for the specfics, I was talking about Germany in France and the USSR.
Assuming more or less historical conditions, France is not really an issue. You can invade with motorized soap box cars and knock over France roughly on schedule. But presumably you want to be able to shift the same divisions back to the east for Barbarossa without having to reorganize their elements in between, so the USSR case is the one that really matters. And for that there are a few likely builds that can suit, depending on your preferred style of play.
1. ARM/MOT/TD/SPART is a strong all-arounder, having excellent hard and soft attack, decent softness, fair match of speed among the elements. Downsides: a bit expensive in IC-days, might be overkill for an on schedule Barbarossa, since you probably don't need that much hard attack unless you attack late. Suitable for just bashing ahead, or if used in tightly coordinated penetrations, has the grit to hold open lengthy encirclement corridors while you mop up the trapped enemy divisions.
2. ARM/MOT/MOT/SPART is much like the one above, except 3 width instead of 2, a little cheaper, can absorb losses much better, has better soft attack. Downsides: higher softness, still a bit expensive. Roughly same suitability as #1 but oriented more toward on schedule or early Barbarossa where the enemy tank threat is low.
3 and 3a. LARM/MOT/TD/SPART or LARM/MOT/MOT/SPART are much like #1 and #2, respectively, but considerably cheaper and a bit faster if you research an extra bump each for both light and medium tank engine to speed up the MOT and the support brigade(s) so they can better take advantage of LARM's high speed. This one shines at penetration raids, but is definitely best if you don't let Barborossa be delayed past the historical launch date.
4. LARM/MOT/MOT/AC is moderately fast, requires less research, is a bit cheaper even than #3. This one is a great choice if you plan to rush for an early Barbarossa, since it is so much easier to complete a decent force of these very early on.
5. ARM/MEC/TD/SPART is a monster, but it pretty much requires some serious tech rushing to get the MEC researched, and almost certainly will result in a late Barbarossa launch unless you also started cooking mobile practicals from day one of the campaign. Quite expensive, obviously, but a supercharged version of #1, being harder and harder hitting.
Those should be more than enough examples to see all the key factors in play and how to balance one against another, as well as how to balance the missions parameters against those factors. There are lots of other sound builds, and some of the people who post them will tout this or that one as "best" or "most effective"; while most posters will just say that they prefer this or that one. Those latter people definitely have the better choice of words going, since there really is a lot of room for personal preference in this area.
For open plains armor divisions, I like ARM/MOT/AC/SPART. Comparing AC vs TD, you lose softness and HA but gain more speed in the open as well as SA and Toughness.
Thanks; I really appreciate your answer. I'm leaning towards #1. I have used #2 almost exclusively, and I I will also have "SS panzer division" build of ARM+WAFFEN SS+WAFFEN SS+SPART who will be the divisions that will able to absorb more losses.
If you want the earliest, cheapest, and quickest Barbarossa possible, MOT/AC/AC/AC is the way to go. Spammable as heck with low IC and manpower, dominates anything that isn't Armor, and the Soviets have no chance of producing enough armor to hold the front, leaving their armor completely helpless and encircled as you sweep through their infantry flanks in a matter of days. Optionally add in a few TD brigades in if you want anti-armor.
I think this is predicated on an assumption that is untrue. Building larger divisions does nothing to increase your supply. Supply isn't about divisions, supply is about Brigades.
The question at hand isn't whether deploying (example) 50 5-brigade divisions is better than deploying 50 4-brigade divisions. those two situations are entirely nonequivalent. The correct question is whether deploying 40 5-brigade divisions is better than deploying 50 4-brigade divisions. In this case the 5-brigade setup is clearly stronger in flat out combat ability, the only issue is whether the increased ability to cover a wide front is needed or desirable.
As for me, I almost never use 5 brigade divisions simply because I'm lazy and reorganizing/deploying individual brigades while a war is going on is a major time sink.
I think this is predicated on an assumption that is untrue. Building larger divisions does nothing to increase your supply. Supply isn't about divisions, supply is about Brigades.
The question at hand isn't whether deploying (example) 50 5-brigade divisions is better than deploying 50 4-brigade divisions. those two situations are entirely nonequivalent. The correct question is whether deploying 40 5-brigade divisions is better than deploying 50 4-brigade divisions. In this case the 5-brigade setup is clearly stronger in flat out combat ability, the only issue is whether the increased ability to cover a wide front is needed or desirable.
As for me, I almost never use 5 brigade divisions simply because I'm lazy and reorganizing/deploying individual brigades while a war is going on is a major time sink.
I've come to the conclusion that I generally get the best results with a standard "light" division (INF, MTN, or MAR) starting with 3 INF/1 ART, adding the 5th Brigade as ENG to become INF/INF/INF/ART/ENG.
One the mobile side, I generally start with ARM/ARM/MOT/SPART, adding a second MOT at the 5th Brigade: ARM/ARM/MOT/MOT/SPART
If a bit un-imaginative, these two standard models seem to provide the greatest versatility and fair IC costs to acquire a sufficiently sized force against most adversaries. The only drawback is when I encounter HARM/MECH units (usually German), but these tend to be in such small numbers that I can typically concentrate mobile forces to overcome any deficiencies rather quickly.
One the mobile side, I generally start with ARM/ARM/MOT/SPART, adding a second MOT at the 5th Brigade: ARM/ARM/MOT/MOT/SPART
If a bit un-imaginative, these two standard models seem to provide the greatest versatility and fair IC costs to acquire a sufficiently sized force against most adversaries. The only drawback is when I encounter HARM/MECH units (usually German), but these tend to be in such small numbers that I can typically concentrate mobile forces to overcome any deficiencies rather quickly.
True enough. Never said otherwise.
Not what I was saying. Read it more carefully. I was advocating using less brigades overall, rather than increasing the number of deployed brigades in order to cover more of them under the umbrella of a fixed number of commando trait leaders because you expect that many brigades to be out of supply much of the time. Here is the comparison I was talking about, taking a hypothetical section of front line that is 5 provinces long with mountain terrain at the end of a long supply line:
1. Deploy 40 brigades organized into 10 divisions of MTNx4, each division having one of your 10 available commando leaders to help them deal with being out of supply.
2. Deploy 30 brigade organized into 10 division of MTNx3, each division having a logistics wizard, to help them avoid going out of supply in the first place, both by reducing the number of brigade being supplied and to remove the consumption requirements of each brigade.
The latter method, even though representing less combat power on paper, is actually the stronger force. 40 brigades out of supply with commando leaders are definitely weaker than 30 brigades IN supply with LW leaders.
Nothing wrong with that. Personal style is a serious trump card that should not be ignored.
But again, less brigades overall has nothing to do with whether you deploy them in 4x or 3x or 5x. No one is disputing that using more brigades than you can supply is a bad idea. But if you deploy 30 brigades the supply cost of doing 6x5 is the same as doing 10x3, and the former will certainly be more powerful.
You are making the assumption that we are keeping the same amount of divisions and pulling extra brigades out of nowhere. In reality the situation is that we have the same number of brigades in both situations and need to make a decision on how to organize them.
That point was irrelevant to what I was trying to say, so I never tried to address it. That said, if 6x5 were even possible, it would certainly be more powerful from a frontage standpoint. Never said otherwise. In fact I have several times in this thread said exactly that. My point was that in that specific instance, the other things were NOT equal, since the rationale for the higher brigade count was a limited number of commando leaders for divisions out of supply, NOT a limited amount of frontage.
No, the situation was a supply difficulty, for which the solution was to thin out the number of brigades on the front. The proposed solution of going to a smaller build was just a way to conserve the division count, since that had not been labeled as problematic in the scenario. That said, in my example above where 30 brigades under LW leadership could be supplied while 40 could not, on a 5 province wide front, by some measures the 3-width build is indeed better than the 5. The 3 wide build puts six brigades in every province, while the 5 wide puts only 5 per prov with one prov getting 10, and thus is weaker along 80% of the line and much stronger at 20% of it. In short, the smaller build in circumstances like this provides more tactical flexibility while sacrificing some min-max frontage efficiency to get it.
In any case, like I said you are taking the whole matter out of context, since the context here was very specifically the solving of an out of supply issue, not the min-maxing of a frontage issue. Sometimes the solution to the former is to compromise on the latter, often with the result that the 5th brigade is sacrificed for other tactical and/or logistical gains. To put it most simply, you don't always need 5 brigade in every province, and can sometimes make do with only 4 or even 3. And sometimes you cannot supply 5 brigades per division without reducing the number of divisions below the unit count needed to cover all the necessary tasks at hand. It was in the sense of that latter case that I was speaking; THAT was the context.
6x5 = 6 divisions with 5 brigades each. And conservation of any type of leaders is a good idea. Furthermore, I'm not even sure why you are trying to turn this into a discussion about frontage. Elaborate?
I think you are taking the matter out of context. What you stated was:
The logistics wizards part is correct. The reduction of brigades in a division is not. Deploying smaller divisions doesn't solve a supply situation any more than cutting a pizza into more slices gets you more pizza to eat. The only way to reduce the infrastructure weight that a front is carrying is to deploy less brigades overall, but this is orthogonal to the matter of how you group the brigades up.
Last edited:
How many different times and in how many different ways do I need to say this? When I spoke of moving to a smaller unit build I was implying a move to the same number of divisions but with fewer brigades per division!
Please quit re-hammering a point I already clarified to mean something completely different from what you are repeatedly attributing to me.
I believe a wise master, who is also very secretive, told me that the best division in any general situation is one with low softness and high soft attack---which can be best obtained in an armored division, using MEC/MOT and other support brigades like AC
He may certainly have.
A low-softness, high SA division with armored brigades brings a lot of different awesome stuff to combat: armor rating, firepower, resistance to firepower, and speed. Of course, such a division would fail miserably in Afghanistan or French Indochina, so you really got to think hard about unit mission. But keep in mind that one of the things we are talking about here for ltccone is optimization. Divisions can be optimized a ton of different ways:
1) Soft attack: In most normal games, enemy divisions you encounter will have a high probability of having high softness. If you have lots of soft attack, you will wipe them off the map.
2) Hard attack: It is far less likely that you will encounter low softness divisions. Even AI armored divisions are often past the 50% threshold, especially if they are employing SPART. But, if intelligence is telling you that the enemy has an unusual amount of armor, AC, and TDs, it's time to consider employing the right kind of firepower to counter them.
3) CA bonus: Lots of players like optimizing the CA bonus. I did while I was first playing TFH, although I've cooled on trying to make it a top priority. The real priority with CA is to make sure you have armor and mobile infantry in a division plus the appropriate doctrine. You can go full steam with trying to get every little 5% out of the CA bonus, and that will lead to very different kinds of divisions than if you went another path. But always double check your division in the division builder. Don't add another 5% CA bonus if the terrain modifiers or lack of firepower render the extra 5% irrelevant.
4) Penetration/Armor: This is the LARM/ARM/HARM/SHARM race. The lack-of-penetration penalty is very harsh; you could argue it's even harsher than the hard-on-soft penalty it replaced. While it occurs at the division level, you might consider thinking in terms of 'immunization' throughout an entire theater. While AT and TD are not that great in bad terrain, and while they lack a lot of firepower, it is a hell of a lot easier and cheaper to put an AT brigade with every INF division than it is to try and build twice as many armored divisions as the enemy. And while TD can't usually penetrate HARM, a cagey Soviet player might spam-research TD/AT guns and try to render a lazy German production plan obsolete by penetrating crappy HARM.
5) Softness: You can get insanely low softness values in divisions by using TDs and AC. Sometimes those TDs aren't there for their penetration so much as their reduction in division softness.
6) Terrain: Enough said, and easy to do now that the division builder shows you the terrain modifiers in the window.
7) Supply: This was pro_consul's point earlier. Rethinking divisions and making them both smaller and reducing their logistical footprint, while not putting a ton of brigades in a theater, would make a big difference in some cases.
8) Officer ratio: Sure, you're thinking to yourself "But all brigades have the same officer cost." But they don't, really. Those MIL brigades only cost 10 officers per brigade. That's a 90% discount compared to INF, and cheaper than GAR's 30. There's no reason build 1000 brigades for garrison duties and have them cost 100 officers each. Oh, and since MIL can be upgraded to other types, there's not IC lost if you change your mind and need them to be INF or MOT or whatever.
It bears mentioning that these two points are mutual tradeoffs, so to speak. The first point seems to say that TD are near superfluous since stacking soft attack will work even against most AI-crafted armored divisions, since they will have >50% softness. But TD also lowers your own softness, and much more cheaply that armor; and AI crafted armored divisions still tend to have more soft attack than hard attack. So if that TD can help get your softness below 50%, then even though it may not be focusing the right kind of firepower on the enemy, it is also forcing the enemy's focus to be off. In short, you are trading away an increased ability to damage the enemy for a reduction in the enemy's ability to damage you. For some situations this is a good idea, especially if you are also going to be enjoying an advantage in armor vs the enemy's ability pierce it.
The point is that you can't imply that. To do so is literally summoning units out of mid air when it suits you. That does not happen in game. The number of units on a front is fixed at any point in time. The question of the thread is how to group brigades on a front, not how many to make and deploy. You are, intentionally or unintentionally, conflating two entirely separate issues here by lumping those two questions together. That leads to statements that can be very, very wrong, because reducing division size to reduce supply issues is often a very, very bad idea compared to reducing the number of divisions.
I get what you are trying to say, but the way you are saying it paints a very distorted and incomplete picture of the situation.
Last edited:
No, if you insist on using cliche phrases, I was not summoning out of mid air, but rather opposite, banishing without a trace.
Stuff and utter nonsense. Players do not generally build X number of brigades send them all to the front line with enemy nation ABC, and only then get about the task of grouping them into divisions.
No, actually it doesn't. It paints a very common, very familiar picture to anyone who has played this game much. I won't go into whatever your reasons might be for misrepresenting my position over and over and over, whether it is that the concept is alien and you can't get your head around it, or whatever. But I have read back a couple of times now, and I must say that while I merely implied in my original post of that point, since then I have been at pains to be simple, clear and unambiguous. I would advise you reread it yourself, like I just did.