The 5th Brigade

[KGrob]

I usually play Germany and the war is normally over for me before I ever get to the 5 brigade level. I typically use 3-Inf+1-Arty on the attack. I break them down (like after France is taken) into smaller components for garrison duty...usually 2-Inf+1-Arty in key areas or just 1-Inf+1Arty or even just 2-Inf. I mix in a bunch of garrison units on ports and cavalry in the back for support. This stretches out my manpower a bit and allows quicker response to any invasions along the coast or any uprisings in my rear area.

 

[Sweynforkbeard]

For garrison purposes, hunting rebels or taking territory from weak opponents, especially in desolate places it can make good sense to reduce the size of the division.

However, there is no strong compelling reason to prefer 4 over 5 brigades in a standard regular combat division for a nation like Germany. The supply issue is generally overblown partly because it can be offset by changing division composition. E.g. if supply is you primary concern it can be effectively solved by replacing the SPAT with 2 AC instead. And partly (Russia) because you can, through espionage, reduce the national unity enough that you will not have to push much further into Russia than Moscow.

The main advantage of the 5 brigade division is that:
1) It allows you to spread the the benefit of an armor brigade over more brigades. This is a major advantage and a very good reason to aim for 5 brigades in your armored divisions.
2) You can achieve a higher CA bonus, however assuming you take steps in general to maximize CA then the marginal effect on your combat ability is very small. The last 5% CA will only net you a roughly 3,5% increase in combat ability.
3) A 5 brigade division will on average do more damage and receive less damage versus a similar number of brigades spread over more divisions.
4) 5 Brigade divisions allow you to use fewer and better quality generals

The only real advantages 4 have over 5 is:
1) Less micromanagement; having to add extra brigades to existing divisions can be a pain.
2) If your frontline is thin, more divisions, in this case the same number of brigades split over more divisions to avoid confusion, allow you to utilize flanking more effectively. Though, this is unlikely to be of much relevance as Germany, you should have more than enough brigades to cover a front line.
3) 4 brigade divisions allow you to train more generals

 

[ltccone]

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.

I appreciate your answer here. It has given me a lot to think about.

 

[Pro_Consul]

However, there is no strong compelling reason to prefer 4 over 5 brigades in a standard regular combat division for a nation like Germany.

Actually there is one strong reason, but it has nothing to do with unit-for-unit combat statistics or frontage. If you are going to be using AI delegation for your ground forces, the AI performs much better with a higher division count of smaller divisions than a lower count of bigger ones. It is able to juggle its various priorities and deal with them more efficiently if it has more discrete units available to it, even if those units are weaker as a result. But for full manual, it comes back to the other considerations like those you list.

 

[Sachaztan]

I don't think anyone has brought this up so far, but TD actually slows down ARM. If speed is of importance (like in Barbarossa for Germany) then think twice about adding those TDs. And don't mix TD with LARM since this obliterates the biggest advantage LARM has: speed.

For super fast exploitations divisions that packs a punch I like:
1x LARM / 1x MECH / 1x SP R Art / 2x AC

One way to build well-rounded armor divisions is this:
1x ARM / 2x MOT / 1x SP Art / 1x ENG
The ENG makes the armor more flexible, but if you have other priorities you could put something else as the 5th brigade. If conserving manpower is an issue (like for Germany and USA) then consider using MECH instead of MOT.

HARM is a bit more tricky because infantry slows them down but is much cheaper than MOT, whilst HARM is much slower than both MOT and MECH. If you aim towards combining HARM with INF then you can skip several engine upgrades.
1x HARM / 2x INF / 1x Art / 1x ENG
Again, ENG adds flexibility but you can switch this 5th brigade to something else if you have other priorities for your HARM.

 

[Rastrigin]

I don't think anyone has brought this up so far, but TD actually slows down ARM. If speed is of importance (like in Barbarossa for Germany) then think twice about adding those TDs. And don't mix TD with LARM since this obliterates the biggest advantage LARM has: speed.

For super fast exploitations divisions that packs a punch I like:
1x LARM / 1x MECH / 1x SP R Art / 2x AC

One way to build well-rounded armor divisions is this:
1x ARM / 2x MOT / 1x SP Art / 1x ENG
The ENG makes the armor more flexible, but if you have other priorities you could put something else as the 5th brigade. If conserving manpower is an issue (like for Germany and USA) then consider using MECH instead of MOT.

HARM is a bit more tricky because infantry slows them down but is much cheaper than MOT, whilst HARM is much slower than both MOT and MECH. If you aim towards combining HARM with INF then you can skip several engine upgrades.
1x HARM / 2x INF / 1x Art / 1x ENG
Again, ENG adds flexibility but you can switch this 5th brigade to something else if you have other priorities for your HARM.

It all depend on the country you play. If you play for example Germany and you are willing to invest IC and leadership in your armoured forces, than you may build a more diversified force, with specialized division with specific tasks, because the amount of your production is enough to build the practicals for all the brigades you are going to build. On the other hand nations that can't invest into a diversified armour production needs to stick with "flexible" divisions (for example UK)

I don't really like your suggestions. You want to have a diversified armoured production (3 types of armours), but yet want to keep them "flexible". IMHO the divisions you build, other than infantry, need be built for specific tasks, not "flexible", if you can afford it.
MOre in details

1x LARM / 1x MECH / 1x SP R Art / 2x AC. If SP R art is as fast as SPart, this is not a good exploitation division, because the SP R art slow it down and the division is still light (can be stopped by infantry with ATs and can be beaten by medium armours). IMHO you should go like LARM-MECH-3xAC, no way you can make up a fast division that stand up a fight against heavier forces, so you should specialize on speed and use it for just one task. If you want to go bold you can also make divisions like: Larm-4xACs. They can't stand up a fight but they can overrun pretty much everything (fastest division in game). Well maybe with some less ACs they are more convenient .
EDIT: I just checked, SP R Art doesn't slow it down. your division is good.

1x ARM / 2x MOT / 1x SP Art / 1x ENG is flexible, but is also very soft. many players tend to put TDs and ACs instead of eng because it makes the division harder, even if it slows it down. Personally, I prefer ARM-MOT-SPart-TD-AC. Yes it cannot fight on harsh terrains, but if you use it properly (only on plains, hoods, hills...) it is much stronger. Also, the AC makes up for the loss of speed due to the TD.

1x HARM / 2x INF / 1x Art / 1x ENG, again, this is a flexible division, but on plain terrains can be beaten by harder heavy divisions and on harsh terrains is hampered bey the penalities of all the brigades other than ENG. I believe that for Harm you can build 2 different tipes of division.

HARM-MAR-MAR-ENG-ENG is the best divsion for pushing across rivers or in the forrests (example northern East front). For pushing in the plains people tend to use HARM-MOT-MOT-TD, while I prefer HARM-MOT-SPART-TD-AC which is more expensive but has better soft attack, better speed, better CA bonus but is harder and can be stacked more.

On the other hand, there are cases in which nations may prefer to invest in a specific field.
For example SU may prefer to spam Harm and combine them with infantry, so that they don't need to build up armour practicals, while uk can just invest in one type of medium arm to support they're invasions, and focus more on fleet and air units...

 

[ltccone]

I'm using ARM+MOT+SPART+TD and ARM+WSS+WSS+SPART builds in France. They are working well, but what wouldn't in France?

It will be in the USSR where I find out whether they work on not...

 

[Secret Master]

I'm using ARM+MOT+SPART+TD and ARM+WSS+WSS+SPART builds in France. They are working well, but what wouldn't in France?

It will be in the USSR where I find out whether they work on not...

Against the Soviets, your divisions might be fine in individual combats. But the real trick to beating the Soviets involves managing the strategic angle: logistics, theater wide encirclements, and terrain. As important as division composition is, there's not a lot you can do if the Red Army survives relatively intact after the first months of Barbarossa. Invading the Soviet Union is like invading a giant soldier factory, so be prepared.

 

[Sweynforkbeard]

Against the Soviets, your divisions might be fine in individual combats. But the real trick to beating the Soviets involves managing the strategic angle: logistics, theater wide encirclements, and terrain. As important as division composition is, there's not a lot you can do if the Red Army survives relatively intact after the first months of Barbarossa. Invading the Soviet Union is like invading a giant soldier factory, so be prepared.

Wait a minut. Arnt you the guy who said you have never pulled off an encirclement in your life!

 

[Secret Master]

Wait a minut. Arnt you the guy who said you have never pulled off an encirclement in your life!

No. :blink:

Back in the old days, there were players would could literally encircle and destroy 75% of the Red Army in one giant pincer movement. I never pulled those ridiculously huge encirclements off.

I only encircle and destroy small stacks of divisions. Better than AI performance, but certainly not on par with some of my colleagues around here.

That being said, even in small chunks, if you encircle and destroy enough of the Red Army to account for even 25% of their forces, you are on the path to victory, especially if those losses are concentrated in a single sector or theater. Wiping out a big chunk of the Odessa or STAVKA theaters opens doors.

Perhaps I should amend my post, because I flippantly used the "theater-wide encirclement" term. You just need a significant number of encirclements to reduce the Red Army's division count. And you need those encirclements earlier, not later. If the Soviets lose no divisions, you are in for a much harder campaign (unless you have enough high tech TACs to erase divisions).

 

[ltccone]

Against the Soviets, your divisions might be fine in individual combats. But the real trick to beating the Soviets involves managing the strategic angle: logistics, theater wide encirclements, and terrain. As important as division composition is, there's not a lot you can do if the Red Army survives relatively intact after the first months of Barbarossa. Invading the Soviet Union is like invading a giant soldier factory, so be prepared.

I plan on doing a lot of encirclements. I plan on encircling the troops on the Hungarian and Romanian borders by capturing Odessa, and I plan on landing my marine and mountain troops in the Baltic states to cut off the Red Army from Leningrad. And I'll try others as the opportunities arise.

 

[Sweynforkbeard]

No. :blink:

Back in the old days, there were players would could literally encircle and destroy 75% of the Red Army in one giant pincer movement. I never pulled those ridiculously huge encirclements off.

I only encircle and destroy small stacks of divisions. Better than AI performance, but certainly not on par with some of my colleagues around here.

That being said, even in small chunks, if you encircle and destroy enough of the Red Army to account for even 25% of their forces, you are on the path to victory, especially if those losses are concentrated in a single sector or theater. Wiping out a big chunk of the Odessa or STAVKA theaters opens doors.

Perhaps I should amend my post, because I flippantly used the "theater-wide encirclement" term. You just need a significant number of encirclements to reduce the Red Army's division count. And you need those encirclements earlier, not later. If the Soviets lose no divisions, you are in for a much harder campaign (unless you have enough high tech TACs to erase divisions).

I am just teasing you. For the record, I do more or less the same. Infact, I think overrunning is a more appropriate term for my general eastern strategy.

Wipe them all out in a single glorious battle and drive to Moscow. The only major encirclement I do is basically the historical one in the South. Despite having done the Eastern front many times and despite the historical preceedence I repeatedly and without fail manage to deploy to little to the South forcing me to redirect units from the Center to close it up....

 

[rommel7]

Speaking of the 5th brigade... how does the French AI have the ability to build 5 brigade divisions without having the appropriate techs developed? Does any other nation have this ability?

This is in 1937. CGM TFH playing as Germany, with a TAG switch showing France making these builds.

 

[Less]

Definitely don't need encirclements in the East, overrunning is just as good. Populate the front with MOT/AC/AC/AC and/or LARM/MOT/AC/AC and watch as 3/4ths of the Soviet Army evaporates within a month.

 

[Pro_Consul]

I don't think anyone has brought this up so far, but TD actually slows down ARM.

Huh? :blink:

ARM and TD have the exact same base speed: 6. They also get their speed bumps in the exact same amount, 1.0, from the exact same tech, medium tank engine. The only way to make them have different speeds is to research higher levels of medium tank armor than you do of medium tank guns. But if you keep your medium tank techs researched to the same level, then ARM and TD should always have exactly the same speed.

 

[Pro_Consul]

Definitely don't need encirclements in the East, overrunning is just as good. Populate the front with MOT/AC/AC/AC and/or LARM/MOT/AC/AC and watch as 3/4ths of the Soviet Army evaporates within a month.

You can min/max all different kinds of lopsided builds and beat the Soviets (or anyone else!) that way. Not much challenge, skill, or finesse in it. It more or less equates to an "I Win" button. Some might find it fun, but I bet many would find it far less so the second time around.

 

[Lord Curlyton]

I will say that it is much more gratifying to beat the Soviets or Germany with a more realistic feel to your army. With Germany that means I make my armored divisions IC heavy and brutally hard hitting (sometimes even using double armor brigades) so I can group a panzer army and punch straight through a gaping (say 5 province) hole of the Soviet line and start sweeping around and creating bigger encirclements while my INF and MOT divs hold the line or make general advances in weaker areas. I've done the speed max type of build and just set it on AI control before; even if its just adding an AC to every division (even line INF) that difference in speed lets even the AI overrun 80% of the Red Army within a few months.

As the Soviets I try and spread my armor around and use a lot of foot infantry. I try to have some heavies sprinkled in by Barbarossa to represent the KV tanks but I generally avoid concentrating my armor until after Barbarossa begins, and that is usually the T-34 tank swarm I build using the decision bonuses. Unless I'm building a lean Soviet Army (basically a copy of the German one), I mentally prepare for losses, as the Germans have a lot of advantages early on that are difficult for the USSR to make up if you build a vast army. But as long as I can do a fighting retreat and get GPW, I can then go on the offense. If I want to hold the line mostly I find easily defended locations and bait Germans to cross by strategically retreating from a province and then trapping the bridgehead and finishing them off. Overall, I'd say its a lot more fun to play as the Soviets than the Germans in their little play, since you know what's coming and you know it will not be easy, since you have glaring disadvantages that need to be dealt with before you can truly take out Germany.

 

[Secret Master]

Huh? :blink:

ARM and TD have the exact same base speed: 6. They also get their speed bumps in the exact same amount, 1.0, from the exact same tech, medium tank engine. The only way to make them have different speeds is to research higher levels of medium tank armor than you do of medium tank guns. But if you keep your medium tank techs researched to the same level, then ARM and TD should always have exactly the same speed.

You start researching HARM armor, and it will slow those TDs down, unless I'm having a hallucination. Anyone researching HARM will find themselves with slower TDs. They'll be not as soft and more resilient, but they won't be that useful at driving fast.

Which, if we are honest, won't matter anyway if you are pursuing a HARM approach.


As for overruns, they work great in Poland and in some other parts of the Soviet Union. You get to the bad terrain in places around Leningrad (all those damn trees), the Pripet Marshes, and some key river lines, and the speed penalties makes it harder to get good results.

Of course, most experienced players will try to bag lots of the Red Army in Poland, where they can move fast anyway, so.....

 

[Sweynforkbeard]

You start researching HARM armor, and it will slow those TDs down, unless I'm having a hallucination. Anyone researching HARM will find themselves with slower TDs. They'll be not as soft and more resilient, but they won't be that useful at driving fast.

Which, if we are honest, won't matter anyway if you are pursuing a HARM approach.


As for overruns, they work great in Poland and in some other parts of the Soviet Union. You get to the bad terrain in places around Leningrad (all those damn trees), the Pripet Marshes, and some key river lines, and the speed penalties makes it harder to get good results.

Of course, most experienced players will try to bag lots of the Red Army in Poland, where they can move fast anyway, so.....

Harm Research will slow down TDs.

Liberal use of ACs can more or less eliminate the terrain/speed problems in Russia.

 

[Secret Master]

Harm Research will slow down TDs.

Liberal use of ACs can more or less eliminate the terrain/speed problems in Russia.

Are you telling me you can get 11 kph in the Pripet Marshes? Or are you telling me that enemy divisions are hurt more by bad terrain than AC divisions?

I ask because I never seem to be able to get overruns in the woods, forests, marshes, and cities, despite my best efforts (but then again, I'm not the best at optimizing for speed, either).