We are so organized.

[MJF]

Never did understand why ppl don't mix their mobile infantry in with their panzers. A corps of tanks alone should be ripe for close-in infantry assults - even tho they aren't in this game. Also, the armor helps the org loss of the MOT's, doesn't it?

From last 1940 Barbarossa campaign.

 

[MJF]

No.

HQs should get a general or FM with poor traits, because competence does not matter, only rank.

Fighting troops should get the best generals available, which will be Manstein, Guderian and Rommel. As the best leaders are limited, having 9 divisions each can make sense for the initial battle. Later the picture becomes less clear.

I used to make a stack of 6 or 9 with 1 HQ unit + 3 ARM + 5 MOT/MEC (or 1+2+3) units in HOI II. That way I didn't lose the HQ. I still do sometimes, like in 1943/44 for USSR, round 2, when going deep in - Novosibirsk or Yakutsk. Better supply and command strength that way.

I never agreed with the idea that your HQ units can be with crappy commanders. Seems there s/b a penalty for that!

 

[Pang Bingxun]

Never did understand why ppl don't mix their mobile infantry in with their panzers. A corps of tanks alone should be ripe for close-in infantry assults - even tho they aren't in this game. Also, the armor helps the org loss of the MOT's, doesn't it?

Mixing motorized divisions with armoured divisions is good idea, but maybe not vice versa. 2 Mot with 1 Arm is a good idea, 2 Arm with 1 Mot not so much.

The motorized divisions will profit from better combined arms bonus which increases their attack value and their defense value. So they will do marginal more damage to the enemy per hour and lose marginally less org per hour. The same is also true for the armoured divisions, but marginally less so.

 

[Mr_B0narpte]

Fighting troops should get the best generals available, which will be Manstein, Guderian and Rommel. As the best leaders are limited, having 9 divisions each can make sense for the initial battle. Later the picture becomes less clear.

I guess the picture becomes crystal clear when those generals reach their max skill limit of 6-9, then promote them ASAP and have them command your best units.

 

[Mr_B0narpte]

Never did understand why ppl don't mix their mobile infantry in with their panzers. A corps of tanks alone should be ripe for close-in infantry assults - even tho they aren't in this game. Also, the armor helps the org loss of the MOT's, doesn't it?

Part of the problem is speed, for '41 MOT and '39 ARM certainly makes sense for 2 MOT/1 ARM, but with 1941 ARM their speed increases significantly and that might become crucial in any advance.

 

[Pang Bingxun]

I guess the picture becomes crystal clear when those generals reach their max skill limit of 6-9, then promote them ASAP and have them command your best units.

Regarding promotion i would say that promoting to general should not be delayed at all. That way you reduce your manpower losses from begin on.

With "later" i meant later in the same campaign. Keeping the same 9 or 12 divions in the same unit is not always the best choice. But if heavy fighting is expected, then using the limited amount of eliteleaders best is a paramount concern.

 

[vitality]

I used to make a stack of 6 or 9 with 1 HQ unit + 3 ARM + 5 MOT/MEC (or 1+2+3) units in HOI II. That way I didn't lose the HQ. I still do sometimes, like in 1943/44 for USSR, round 2, when going deep in - Novosibirsk or Yakutsk. Better supply and command strength that way.

I never agreed with the idea that your HQ units can be with crappy commanders. Seems there s/b a penalty for that!

Its enough for a HQ to be in an adjacent province for a corps to get the full benefits. If I'm not mistaken, having a HQ in fight is a waste of the command limit. If there is a choice, I keep my HQ's out of the fight and usually on a province behind the frontlines.

 

[MJF]

Its enough for a HQ to be in an adjacent province for a corps to get the full benefits. If I'm not mistaken, having a HQ in fight is a waste of the command limit. If there is a choice, I keep my HQ's out of the fight and usually on a province behind the frontlines.

Yeah, I know. I was just being lazy. Lately I give HQ's 2 regular infantry units - one with Eng, one with SP art. I actually use them in some attacks, and they hold up if I get careless and they get jumped. Slows the HQ down however.

 

[Acheron]

There was some HoI2 mod, where HQs had exclusive access to a special brigade that massively increased their combat power.

 

[MJF]

Mixing motorized divisions with armoured divisions is good idea, but maybe not vice versa. 2 Mot with 1 Arm is a good idea, 2 Arm with 1 Mot not so much.

What's wrong with 2 Arm + 1 Mot?

 

[Mr_B0narpte]

What's wrong with 2 Arm + 1 Mot?

The benefit of combined arms is severely reduced. But on the other side of the coin, a panzer leader general would have a greater impact (and would more then compensate for the reduced combined arms, but I imagine Pang assumes a panzer leader, even for a 1 ARM+2 MOT corps).

 

[Mr_B0narpte]

There was some HoI2 mod, where HQs had exclusive access to a special brigade that massively increased their combat power.

Not sure I see the point in that. HQs weren't combat units at all, and is more to reflect the more vague notion of command then be some sort of combat unit.

 

[Pang Bingxun]

What's wrong with 2 Arm + 1 Mot?

The Mot will run out of org before the Arm, thus the division will slow down the entire unit.

Combined arms bonus is actually marginally hiher. Arm1939-SpArt1940 has softness 0.282, Mot1941-SpArt1940 has softness 0.7802. This means that 2 Mot + 1 Arm has softness 0.6141, while 2 Arm + 1 Mot has softness 0.4481. So combatwise this unit will be better than 2 Mot + 1 Arm.

The main argument is simply icd. You can get almost 4 Mot per Arm. So spending a given icd into units of 2 Mot + 1 Arm instead of 2 Arm + 1 Mot will give you a stronger army.

If however you have the icd for 2 Arm + 1 Mot, then you might as well go for 3 Mech. That way all divisions get the panzer leader bonus and all divisions get the bonus from the Chief of Army with the doctrine of armoured spearhead.

Mechanized divisions are not easy to handle right, but they can be quite strong if handled right. Similar to armoured divisions they can lose strenght faster than they regain it. So the need for repairs(meaning ic put on the reinforcement slider) needs to be considered right. Motorized divisions are much more convenient in that regard. Simply spamming Mot is a strategy for Germany, that is very easy to handle.

Going for units that require more time to replace losses reduces you flexibility by a signicant margin. Of course you can still use divisions with strenght down to 80%. But there is a price to it.

 

[MJF]

The Mot will run out of org before the Arm, thus the division will slow down the entire unit.

That's why I made MOTs with ACs, which is how this thread got started, and to-which virtually no one has had comment.

Combined arms bonus is actually marginally hiher. Arm1939-SpArt1940 has softness 0.282, Mot1941-SpArt1940 has softness 0.7802. This means that 2 Mot + 1 Arm has softness 0.6141, while 2 Arm + 1 Mot has softness 0.4481. So combatwise this unit will be better than 2 Mot + 1 Arm.

These are the mathematical aspects that I pay almost no attention to, and rely on you to tell me!

The main argument is simply icd. You can get almost 4 Mot per Arm. So spending a given icd into units of 2 Mot + 1 Arm instead of 2 Arm + 1 Mot will give you a stronger army.

Yes, and esp since the penalty for MOTs in poor terrain or infra isn't any more than for ARMs or MECs (incredibly) I might as well stick with them.

If however you have the icd for 2 Arm + 1 Mot, then you might as well go for 3 Mech.

And lose the gearing bonus on the ARMs and MOTs?

That way all divisions get the panzer leader bonus and all divisions get the bonus from the Chief of Army with the doctrine of armoured spearhead.

Once war starts the chief with -15% supplies seems indispensible.

Mechanized divisions are not easy to handle right, but they can be quite strong if handled right. Similar to armoured divisions they can lose strenght faster than they regain it. So the need for repairs(meaning ic put on the reinforcement slider) needs to be considered right. Motorized divisions are much more convenient in that regard. Simply spamming Mot is a strategy for Germany, that is very easy to handle.

I build MECs to deal with the USA, but MOTs and ARMs have worked as well. Seems MECs + HA are a defensive power unit. I don't need that as Germany, except on the East Wall after BP, where I use infantry corps with an Engineer unit, and an alliance with Japan, to frighten off the USSR.

Going for units that require more time to replace losses reduces you flexibility by a signicant margin.

As I've discovered with my CV's. I push them to and beyond their limits 2 times: Sealion and the expanded Operation Pastorius (look that one up!). After Sealion I can give the damaged ones a year off.

Of course you can still use divisions with strenght down to 80%. But there is a price to it.

There always is...

 

[Pang Bingxun]

That's why I made MOTs with ACs, which is how this thread got started, and to-which virtually no one has had comment.

Let me comment on it: It is a bad idea. Go for SpArt or Art. More firepower is preferable to a little bit more org on top of the already huge german org.

And lose the gearing bonus on the ARMs and MOTs?

The idea is of course to not build any Arm or Mot in the first place. You tech rush Mech1940 from day one, you build the rocket test site to help it and in late 1938 you massproduce mechanized divisions. They will be strong enough to take on Poland at Danzig, but you will lack numbers to take on France in 1939. It takes about 2 years for a production line to reach its optimum. For infantry it is less.

Combining Mech and Arm can work well. 2 Mech 1942-SpArt1940 + 1 Arm1941-SpArt1940 have softness 0.5076 is is very close to the optimum. But as Mech1942-SpArt1940 has already softness 0.6204 it already gets 94.2% of the possible combined arms bonus. So there is no need for the armoured divisions or a Heavy Armour brigade.

Once war starts the chief with -15% supplies seems indispensible.

I disagree. +10% on attack means that you win the initial battle earlier which saves oil and supplies, possibly more than 15% if you count in the possibility to cycle units back into battle if battles take long enough.

For Danzig, Fall Gelb and early Barbarossa this minister will be preferable. Once you have advanced deep into the logistical nightsmares of Siberia the -15% supply consumption can become critical. But this can be substituted by allowing divisions to be low on strenght as this will also reduce consumption.

 

[MJF]

Let me comment on it: It is a bad idea. Go for SpArt or Art. More firepower is preferable to a little bit more org on top of the already huge german org.

I used to use MOT+regular Art all the time. That's when I experienced low org in the MOTs.

You tech rush Mech1940 from day one, you build the rocket test site to help it and in late 1938 you massproduce mechanized divisions.

What, pray tell, does a rocket test site have to do with a mechanised division?

I disagree. +10% on attack means that you win the initial battle earlier which saves oil and supplies, possibly more than 15% if you count in the possibility to cycle units back into battle if battles take long enough.
For Danzig, Fall Gelb and early Barbarossa this minister will be preferable. Once you have advanced deep into the logistical nightsmares of Siberia the -15% supply consumption can become critical. But this can be substituted by allowing divisions to be low on strenght as this will also reduce consumption.

Good to know.

 

[Mr_B0narpte]

I used to use MOT+regular Art all the time. That's when I experienced low org in the MOTs.

As Pang said, an additional 5% org pales in comparison to the additional firepower offered by artillery, especially given Germany's high ORG land doctrines (making the ORG bonus reward even smaller).

What, pray tell, does a rocket test site have to do with a mechanised division?

Boosts rocketry research, which is part of the mechanised infantry research.

 

[Pang Bingxun]

I used to use MOT+regular Art all the time. That's when I experienced low org in the MOTs.

Try SpArt instead. Art only increases defence, while SpArt also increases thoughness and decreases softness. Lower softness means you lose org slightly slower. Higher thoughness means that you lose org slower when you are the attacker.

 

[Acheron]

Not sure I see the point in that. HQs weren't combat units at all, and is more to reflect the more vague notion of command then be some sort of combat unit.

I think this high-powered HQ unit nicely represented army support units. And game wise, it made the HQ more important and gave it something to do then parking behind the front.

 

[Mr_B0narpte]

I think this high-powered HQ unit nicely represented army support units. And game wise, it made the HQ more important and gave it something to do then parking behind the front.

Okay, I just think the "army support units" are better represented with land unit brigades, alongside the way HQs are currently handled. It can reflect the devastating impact that happened IRL when units would attack an enemy HQ if they advanced far quicker then expected.