The Question of Combat Width - 40

[DamdIfINo99]

So I've been pondering this for a while and have been trying to find the best answer to what I've been calling the question of combat width. I'm sure that most everyone here will agree that 20 combat width is the best all-around number but I've found some arguments and situations that would actually call for other widths.


My biggest concept in which I've been pondering is a 40 combat width for Army Groups under the command of Generals (24 divisions). In comparison to a 20 combat width army group, the best front line with 100% combat strength (80 combat width per province) would only be 6 provinces wide. However, a 40 combat width Army Group could - in theory - cover 12 provinces with 80 combat width per province.


Another example of effective 40-combat width would be for Marine Groups. Hitting 2-3 beaches, a front line would be highly based on how many divisions can fit on it with (optimally) 100% combat strength.


Paratrooper Groups could also benefit from 40-combat widths nearly doubling the number of provinces 24 airborne divisions can drop into.


However, this has set backs of its own, the biggest I can think of being support battalions. Percentage modifiers like engineers wouldn't change but point modifiers like artillery would be effectively halved.


What do you think?

 

[SpeedKatMcNasty]

So I've been pondering this for a while and have been trying to find the best answer to what I've been calling the question of combat width. I'm sure that most everyone here will agree that 20 combat width is the best all-around number but I've found some arguments and situations that would actually call for other widths.


My biggest concept in which I've been pondering is a 40 combat width for Army Groups under the command of Generals (24 divisions). In comparison to a 20 combat width army group, the best front line with 100% combat strength (80 combat width per province) would only be 6 provinces wide. However, a 40 combat width Army Group could - in theory - cover 12 provinces with 80 combat width per province.


Another example of effective 40-combat width would be for Marine Groups. Hitting 2-3 beaches, a front line would be highly based on how many divisions can fit on it with (optimally) 100% combat strength.


Paratrooper Groups could also benefit from 40-combat widths nearly doubling the number of provinces 24 airborne divisions can drop into.


However, this has set backs of its own, the biggest I can think of being support battalions. Percentage modifiers like engineers wouldn't change but point modifiers like artillery would be effectively halved.


What do you think?

If were talking basic meta, 40 width is actually considered to be better all-around, and 20 width is more of a defensive option. You do get less use out of your support artillery if you go 40 width, but as a 40 width division will have 4 line artillery, the total soft attack as a percentage of the whole lost is minimal. 40 have more HP and thus take fewer casualties and equipment damage from combat. 40 have more total defense, breakthrough, and attack than 20. This helps to counter tanks, counter other 40 width divisions (which are almost immune to 20 width) and are much better on offense because of the breakthrough.

The one advantage of 20 width is that you have double the total org. This means thats while your divisions are going to get wrecked by the 40 width attacking you, or that you are attacking, the higher total org will increase your holding time before routing or help you pin the enemy you are attacking for longer.

Keep in mind that the smaller your division size, the more important reinforce rate is. I wouldnt go 20 width without using signal companies if i knew those divisions would be seeing front line action against armor.

 

[ScientX]

To be fair 20 width can be good at attacking if your overall strategy is to keep your CAS operating for a very loong time.

Ofc you can also have a lot of 40 width divs. But i like using 22 width inf just to do harassment with CAS.

Since you have more org on the attack it will last longer. And you will only loose infantry equipment.

Overall id say tank divs should be exclusevly 40 or 44 width just because you want high breaktrough and soft attack values.

I have yet to see a good 22 width tank division work in multiplayer.

22 width inf with tanks is quite common but thats just not a tank div.

 

[dave1233]

The problem with 40 width is it is really bad in defence and will tend to have real trouble reinforcing even with signal companies so it can only really be used for offensive divisions like tanks

 

[redrum68]

If were talking basic meta, 40 width is actually considered to be better all-around, and 20 width is more of a defensive option. You do get less use out of your support artillery if you go 40 width, but as a 40 width division will have 4 line artillery, the total soft attack as a percentage of the whole lost is minimal. 40 have more HP and thus take fewer casualties and equipment damage from combat. 40 have more total defense, breakthrough, and attack than 20. This helps to counter tanks, counter other 40 width divisions (which are almost immune to 20 width) and are much better on offense because of the breakthrough.

The one advantage of 20 width is that you have double the total org. This means thats while your divisions are going to get wrecked by the 40 width attacking you, or that you are attacking, the higher total org will increase your holding time before routing or help you pin the enemy you are attacking for longer.

Keep in mind that the smaller your division size, the more important reinforce rate is. I wouldnt go 20 width without using signal companies if i knew those divisions would be seeing front line action against armor.

Good overview there (should really be in the wiki or something). I tend to use 40 width in most cases as well especially if you are primarily attacking (Germany, Italy, Japan) as you want to stack your attack power as much as possible. The only other major consideration for 20 > 40 other than more org is if you are a minor nation with a large front and need the flexibility to move units around more to cover more area.

I think France is probably an interesting example where folks argue both ways since they are defensive. I tend to think 40 width is better as long as you have enough divisions and can micro them in and out of combat to ensure you're replenishing their org.

 

[Diados]

There are actually a couple other widths that can be useful. 26 width in an army or 29 w/ offensive field Marshall. These both allow 3 divisions per 80 width. They can hold a bit better than 20 width without being as vulnerable as 40 width (in regards to reinforce rate).

 

[redrum68]

Yeah, 26 can be a kind of meet in the middle but the drawback is it doesn't do well at 120 or 200 width.

 

[Nikitian]

@Diados Why not 27 width, in that case? It would just barely be beyond 80-width limit (81), which is generally possible, and not make for potentially too large overcrowding (the reportedly common problem with 22-width division with the field marshal bonus where the total ends sliightly below 80 and thus another division gets called into fight, getting it too far past the limit and with too big negatives - to the point where 23-width divisions or 9%-width-reduction mods are made just to remove that problem).

I'm genuinely interested, and it's the first argument I've seen made for non-20/40 width divisions that still makes use of 80-total-width math.

 

[Beethoven]

@Diados Why not 27 width, in that case?

The biggest problem with 27 width (and other widths > 20 and < 40) is that you can only fit 1 division when a battle is fought with 40 width. This happens sometimes because some tactics reduce width. Invariably, your general will choose a tactic like that at exactly the wrong time, thanks to Murphy's law.

This means that if you use 27 width, you are in the worst of both worlds (i.e. have the worst aspects of both 20 width and 40 width) - you have only a single division defending and no possibility of reinforcing, but that single division is not even as strong as a 40-width division.

IIRC you also can get a really huge penalty when a battle goes to 60 width, which happens sometimes as well. In particular, you often get these unusual widths in some of the most important battles - for river crossings. If you are, say, the Soviets defending the big rivers around Smolensk, you can easily end up letting Germany cross the river simply because you choose that combat width for your units.

So for these reasons, I briefly considered trying out 26/27 width, but rejected them after some testing.

 

[Ibn_Solmyr]

I'm sad that all that width question is so important in that game. It annoys me pretty well since the game release and I hope that devs will be able to seriously moderate whether its impact on performances or the way to planif it. In a few words, I don't really imagine, say a Patton saying : "What ?! You want to give me one more SP-Art ? You fool !? Oh plz nah, I don't want it cause it's gonna break down my statistic efficiency !"

 

[P3D]

The biggest problem with 27 width (and other widths > 20 and < 40) is that you can only fit 1 division when a battle is fought with 40 width. This happens sometimes because some tactics reduce width. Invariably, your general will choose a tactic like that at exactly the wrong time, thanks to Murphy's law.

This means that if you use 27 width, you are in the worst of both worlds (i.e. have the worst aspects of both 20 width and 40 width) - you have only a single division defending and no possibility of reinforcing, but that single division is not even as strong as a 40-width division.

IIRC you also can get a really huge penalty when a battle goes to 60 width, which happens sometimes as well. In particular, you often get these unusual widths in some of the most important battles - for river crossings. If you are, say, the Soviets defending the big rivers around Smolensk, you can easily end up letting Germany cross the river simply because you choose that combat width for your units.

So for these reasons, I briefly considered trying out 26/27 width, but rejected them after some testing.

And 26/27-wide is absolutely suboptimal when defending from 120 width, which is the most common situation on fronlines, getting -17% over-width penalty.
I'm not even sure if 27-wide would reinforce in a 120-wide combat from 108 width to 140.

 

[Alex_brunius]

I'm sad that all that width question is so important in that game.

It's not that important. As long as you go with something reasonable between 15-40 for your main divisions your going to be fine.

It's only one of many many min-max considerations which can change your performance around +-10-15% at most, and all widths have their own drawbacks and benefits.

 

[P3D]

It's not that important. As long as you go with something reasonable between 15-40 for your main divisions your going to be fine.

It's only one of many many min-max considerations which can change your performance around +-10-15% at most, and all widths have their own drawbacks and benefits.

+10-15% is the equivalent of:
- 2 of the more impactful land doctrines
- high command bonus
- 2 levels difference on the FM/General

In a game of margins (like all Paradox titles) it is a significant difference. Except for 1-on-1 (division) fight, you always end up worse going for suboptimal-width divisions, so you are just saying that playing well does not matter at all.

 

[Alex_brunius]

+10-15% is the equivalent of:
- 2 of the more impactful land doctrines
- high command bonus
- 2 levels difference on the FM/General

In a game of margins (like all Paradox titles) it is a significant difference. Except for 1-on-1 (division) fight, you always end up worse going for suboptimal-width divisions, so you are just saying that playing well does not matter at all.

No. All I'm saying is that the topic of width is getting an unreasonable amount of focus in the discussions on the forums here compared to any of the other things you also listed which we agree give fairly equal benefits. To this we can add things like dug in/planning bonus, air superiority, armor/piercing or terrain (which are actually all much bigger impact)

How many threads are there for example around here which details how you always must power-level Generals/FM and how to do this? Or about the importance of always getting the high command bonus and how unfair it is that some nations get a slightly 5% smaller one?

Edit: Something else to keep in mind is that the penalties from going over width will only be relevant in the places where you can go over width. In many fronts, situations and engagements neither side will be close to over width, or you can easily remedy the issue by opening up another direction of attack ( which you probably want to do anyways ), so in this cases all such penalties can be ignored.

 

[Praetori]

+10-15% is the equivalent of:
- 2 of the more impactful land doctrines
- high command bonus
- 2 levels difference on the FM/General

In a game of margins (like all Paradox titles) it is a significant difference. Except for 1-on-1 (division) fight, you always end up worse going for suboptimal-width divisions, so you are just saying that playing well does not matter at all.

The thing is that across a wider front (or throughout a campaign) you're going to experience situations where you get most bang for the buck of your width in one place and the negative effects in another to about equal amounts. It evens out in the long run.
The operational side is way more important. Not having enough divisions in one area where a breakthrough happens or having too heavy ones (send the entire supply-zone to low supply penalties) or losing air-superiority is the real killer. Your width is important for set theoretical scenarios (like naval invasion-defense, maginot etc) but in larger fluid situations it, as I said, evens out.
And it all just fades in comparison with strategic decision-making like having enough equipment of the right type, having the wrong general staff officers assigned or producing too few or the wrong type of aircraft.

 

[P3D]

No. All I'm saying is that the topic of width is getting an unreasonable amount of focus in the discussions on the forums here compared to any of the other things you also listed which we agree give fairly equal benefits. To this we can add things like dug in/planning bonus, air superiority, armor/piercing or terrain (which are actually all much bigger impact)

How many threads are there for example around here which details how you always must power-level Generals/FM and how to do this? Or about the importance of always getting the high command bonus and how unfair it is that some nations get a slightly 5% smaller one?

What does national differences have to do with the discussion? You should maximize your combat power given the available tools.

Edit: Something else to keep in mind is that the penalties from going over width will only be relevant in the places where you can go over width. In many fronts, situations and engagements neither side will be close to over width, or you can easily remedy the issue by opening up another direction of attack ( which you probably want to do anyways ), so in this cases all such penalties can be ignored.

You can easily get over combat width limit in 120 and 160-wide scenarios as well, and the 27-wide division is almost the worst case for 120-wide battles.

The thing is that across a wider front (or throughout a campaign) you're going to experience situations where you get most bang for the buck of your width in one place and the negative effects in another to about equal amounts. It evens out in the long run.

If you want operational flexibility, then you go 20-wide not 40. Or 10.

And it all just fades in comparison with strategic decision-making like having enough equipment of the right type, having the wrong general staff officers assigned or producing too few or the wrong type of aircraft.

Shouldn't that be self-evident, tying to minimize mistakes in the game?

 

[Alex_brunius]

What does national differences have to do with the discussion? You should maximize your combat power given the available tools.

National differences also impacts how soon or how easy it is to unlock enough XP to change all your templates to 40 width divisions, does it not?

All these bonuses usefulness are situational and different depending on what nation and situation you play as/in!


My point is that the way some people argue around the forums you would think having 40 width on your divisions instead of say 32 width is more important then all other things combined. I'm simply trying to take a step back here and say, no it's not the end of the world, and prioritizing differently is a perfectly valid way to play the game.

I get more enjoyment out of designing all my divisions without really caring alot about hitting specific widths, and I never felt it has held me back in any way.

You can easily get over combat width limit in 120 and 160-wide scenarios as well, and the 27-wide division is almost the worst case for 120-wide battles.

And 40 width is almost the worst case for 60-width battles where you get zero reinforcements and can use only 67% of the width = 45% combat power of an enemy near max...

That never seemed to stop anyone advocating them although I love watching them fail miserably in these situations in multiplayer...

Looking from a min-max standpoint ending up below width (without fitting additional divisions) is much worse then going above width and getting the penalty, because the penalty is offset by having more org/stats active in combat.

 

[Praetori]

If you want operational flexibility, then you go 20-wide not 40. Or 10.

That entirely depends on how you play on the operational level. The thing is that looking at a cross-section of a frontline you'll see situations where the 40-width division excels and you'll see others where it's a weakness. The same can be said of the smaller width division templates where you take unproportional and unnecessary losses. That's why the discussions regarding this subject rarely comes out with a definitive answer.

There are always alternatives. Big width armor/mech formations for pinprick breakthroughs at single sectors with narrow width infantry doing nothing but defending in all other areas is on one end of the scale and medium sized all-round formations doing everything on the other, and all the alternatives in-between. It all comes down to how you've geared your production and how much equipment and manpower you're willing to sacrifice on each front. Can you afford the extra equipment needed for small-width support (and the extra losses in equipment and manpower that comes with it) or do you want to go bigger with maintenance support and thus lose less. And of course it's all affected by the enemy setup and strategy as well.

Shouldn't that be self-evident, tying to minimize mistakes in the game?

Not really mistakes, it's rock-paper-scissors decisions depending on the opponents setup.
An optimal strategy vs a Heavy Armor offensive opponent requires a setup that's different from a infantry-centric defensive one etc.

 

[Meglok]

The problem with 40 width is it is really bad in defence and will tend to have real trouble reinforcing even with signal companies so it can only really be used for offensive divisions like tanks

The other issue is that the 80 standard combat width front number does fluctuate with terrain. Moving in terrain other than plains, urban, and desert will reduce allowable combat width. A 40 gets caught in a reduced width front and it is alone. A 10 or 20 width can still be reinforced. 40 width has it's place, and in open terrain it is probably better in the long run. But if you can reinforce in bad terrain, lower widths are probably better.

 

[Dalwin]

There are actually a couple other widths that can be useful. 26 width in an army or 29 w/ offensive field Marshall. These both allow 3 divisions per 80 width. They can hold a bit better than 20 width without being as vulnerable as 40 width (in regards to reinforce rate).

@Diados Why not 27 width, in that case? It would just barely be beyond 80-width limit (81), which is generally possible, and not make for potentially too large overcrowding (the reportedly common problem with 22-width division with the field marshal bonus where the total ends sliightly below 80 and thus another division gets called into fight, getting it too far past the limit and with too big negatives - to the point where 23-width divisions or 9%-width-reduction mods are made just to remove that problem).

I'm genuinely interested, and it's the first argument I've seen made for non-20/40 width divisions that still makes use of 80-total-width math.

26 or 27 is exactly where my infantry most often ends up for many countries. I find that to be best and has other advantages if you take the bigger picture of production and training into account.

Saying that 27 is terrible at 120 width is not entirely accurate. It is not going to break your back to have one division suffering a penalty when you go over width.

27 will do badly if an 80 width battle gets cut in half by tactics, but a 40 width will also do badly when either an 80 or 120 width battle gets cut to half width. 2 or 3 times 20w will almost always push 1x40 in those situations since the smaller units will be allowed to reinforce.

In my last MP game as the Soviets, I did very well during the early part of the war by using a combination of 27 width infantry and 20 width tank divisions. Later on I eventually fattened the infantry templates to get some of my excess equipment from the stockpile into the field.