Vanilla AI in 9.2 beta patch now builds very close to 40-width divisions.

[Harin]

I think, you are quiet correct with this assumption.


My suggestion:
- If ART should stick to 3w, they should get an increase of attack-stats.
or:
- IF ART should get 2w or 1w, they should get a significant decrease of ORG. ( I'm not sure whether AI could handle that properly )

@Ketchup & friends have proposed the artillery battalion to be 1 width and the stats reduced to one third. I think both they and you are on the right track while we work within the current combat mechanics. Personally, like @Zauberelefant said above, if the developers choose to work on the land combat system, I hope they disband this system for something better, using the lessons learned over the years. Wishful thinking I know. Such a change would rival any changes made to date.

 

[sekelsenmat]

@Ketchup & friends have proposed the artillery battalion to be 1 width and the stats reduced to one third. I think both they and you are on the right track while we work within the current combat mechanics. Personally, like @Zauberelefant said above, if the developers choose to work on the land combat system, I hope they disband this system for something better, using the lessons learned over the years. Wishful thinking I know. Such a change would rival any changes made to date.

On one side I like the idea, but consider that ORG is an average of all battalions, regardless of how many guns they have. So this would make artillery weaker by lowering the ORG of divisions with artillery... I dislike the ORG system, my units suddenly fight worse if they have more equipment, they give up the battle faster if they know we have a field hospital, etc ...

 

[AFilthyCasual]

The game doesn't use historical equipment counts, as evidenced by infantry and support equipment counts. Division equipment is balanced around relative production rates of different equipment, not a realistic count. So while an ART battalion has 3x as many guns as a real one, an INF battalion has at least 10x LESS, so the argument about ART is moot. I think keeping them at 3 width if fine, it's a significant firepower upgrade.

The issue, the REAL issue is the battlefield combat width. It is currently 80 - this makes 40 width divisions optimal. This will happen no matter what width you set it at. If you set it at 81, 27 is now optimal. 27 is the width of a standard triangular division: 3 line regiments of 3 battalions, one artillery regiment of 3 battalions. This width doesn't allow for other things to be added though - divisions usually had other things like AT, AA and tank battalions attached. Take a US infantry division - it would have 9 INF, 4 ART, 1 AA, 1 TD and 1 MARM for 35 width. A US armored division would only be 24 width (3 MARM, 3 MECH, 3 SPART, 1 TD, 1 AA) due to only having 6 line battalions instead of 9. There's no way for both widths, both of which are historically accurate, to be optimal. You have to choose. So long as combat width is a thing, you cannot have division width diversity.

I propose a combat width of 60, making 30-width optimal. This allows you to take a standard triangular division - the most common type - and slap 3 extra width onto it to be whatever: either another artillery battalion, 3 AA/AT, or another line battalion (infantry, tanks or tank destroyers) plus an AA/AT.

 

[Zauberelefant]

The game doesn't use historical equipment counts, as evidenced by infantry and support equipment counts. Division equipment is balanced around relative production rates of different equipment, not a realistic count. So while an ART battalion has 3x as many guns as a real one, an INF battalion has at least 10x LESS, so the argument about ART is moot. I think keeping them at 3 width if fine, it's a significant firepower upgrade.

The issue, the REAL issue is the battlefield combat width. It is currently 80 - this makes 40 width divisions optimal. This will happen no matter what width you set it at. If you set it at 81, 27 is now optimal. 27 is the width of a standard triangular division: 3 line regiments of 3 battalions, one artillery regiment of 3 battalions. This width doesn't allow for other things to be added though - divisions usually had other things like AT, AA and tank battalions attached. Take a US infantry division - it would have 9 INF, 4 ART, 1 AA, 1 TD and 1 MARM for 35 width. A US armored division would only be 24 width (3 MARM, 3 MECH, 3 SPART, 1 TD, 1 AA) due to only having 6 line battalions instead of 9. There's no way for both widths, both of which are historically accurate, to be optimal. You have to choose. So long as combat width is a thing, you cannot have division width diversity.

I propose a combat width of 60, making 30-width optimal. This allows you to take a standard triangular division - the most common type - and slap 3 extra width onto it to be whatever: either another artillery battalion, 3 AA/AT, or another line battalion (infantry, tanks or tank destroyers) plus an AA/AT.

Hard to rate your post, while I agree with the first 2 paragraphs, but I would argue that a RNG + fix modifier for Combat width would work the best. So, you still have 80 width as standard, but anything but plains gives you a modifier on that, plus an RNG or infrastructure depending modifier.

But if the system were redone, I'd just prefer the above plus an aggregate of individual battalions as an "in combat" template of the combat width size.
That way, we could have small Independent units meaningfully contribute.

 

[SophieX]

On one side I like the idea, but consider that ORG is an average of all battalions, regardless of how many guns they have. So this would make artillery weaker by lowering the ORG of divisions with artillery...

The "idea" behind the " 2w or 1w artillery with lower ORG"-idea was to avoid, that divisions with ~10 arty would be build, because no one will command divisions with low ORG.