What use does cavalry, armoured cars & rocket artillery have?

[Jamey]

Very interesting.

Lower supply consumption, lower cost, and lower softness are all big differences. Higher toughness and similar SA (to SPART/TD) is icing on the cake.

Since I play single player, I'm rarely hurting for HA. The AI just doesn't build enough hard divisions for me to stress about it.

I think you've made a convert out of me on this one. I'm going to have to give it a spin the next time I play HOI3.

 

[Less]

It's worth noting that if you aren't going to fight Armor, going LARM/MOT/AC/AC gives further discounts and a bit of a speed boost without impairing stats too much. Infantry with AT pierce both ARM and LARM and infantry without AT won't pierce either. Considering the possibility of unit type upgrades a mixed forced is an attractive idea.

High toughness is definitely not to be underestimated. It allows a few comparatively cheap divisions to engage a much larger group of units and "lock" them in combat without taking huge losses from running out of their defensive chances. Meanwhile other units are tightening the noose that is an encirclement.

 

[Kagernaut]

Cavalry are of very limited use. They are a mobile unit that doesn't use fuel, thats pretty much all they can offer. Good for capturing territory and killing rebels.

Armoured cars when attached in a brigade increase its overall speed, great for exploit divisions! If your enemy is speciasling in special forces, marines, paratroopers or mountain, AC can be a very cheap way to get an armour penetration bonus! Think island defence.

Rocket artillery is a bit cheaper upfront cost, thats about it really.

You've picked some of the most marginal units in the game and to be fair they can have some use but they are limited. But your questions are valid and fair. Maybe some of the other forum members will be able to contribute more uses for these lesser used units.

You know, I've experimented with Cavalry recently, and while their stats are a little less than INF overall, they do have some uses. They are faster, true, and combined with AC they do good speedwise. Its a good use for a minor or another country that doesn't have Motorized, or doesn't want the higher fuel consumption. You can also combine them with Armor brigades and AC, and while they won't be as fast as traditional MOT/ARM combos, they will still perform fairly well.

They also use a straight 3MP per brigade, which is .33 less than a standard INF brigade. That can add up over time to some useful manpower savings, especially in large quantities. Also, CAV benefits form techs that enhance the morale and Org for other mobile units and armor, so they can be combined effectively with those unit types.

Still, MOT is better, but CAV is like a poor mans MOT. The higher softness is a bummer, as well as the less speed, but still alot of potential there I think.


And Armored Cars are great, they're my new favorite brigade. They have such low softness, are affordable, give you mobile practical, and their toughness isn't bad either. They also increase your division's speed. And, statwise they are not that far off from infantry. And all this, in a 1 MP package. Plus, the CA bonus as well.
None too shabby, if you ask me.

 

[Kagernaut]

It's worth noting that if you aren't going to fight Armor, going LARM/MOT/AC/AC gives further discounts and a bit of a speed boost without impairing stats too much. Infantry with AT pierce both ARM and LARM and infantry without AT won't pierce either. Considering the possibility of unit type upgrades a mixed forced is an attractive idea.

High toughness is definitely not to be underestimated. It allows a few comparatively cheap divisions to engage a much larger group of units and "lock" them in combat without taking huge losses from running out of their defensive chances. Meanwhile other units are tightening the noose that is an encirclement.

Hmm, my understanding of toughness is that it only applies when a unit is moving, and reduces org loss if attacked while moving. Isn't that how it works?

A useful ability though, nonetheless, especially for a fast division.

 

[BattleMoose]

Hmm, my understanding of toughness is that it only applies when a unit is moving, and reduces org loss if attacked while moving. Isn't that how it works?

A useful ability though, nonetheless, especially for a fast division.

Toughness reduces hits when attacking. Exactly like defensiveness, except for attacking.

 

[Charles Reeps]

Hmm, my understanding of toughness is that it only applies when a unit is moving, and reduces org loss if attacked while moving. Isn't that how it works?

A useful ability though, nonetheless, especially for a fast division.

No, Toughness is used to prevent damage when a unit attacks. Attacks go like this: the attacker uses SA or HA dependent upon the target, while the defender fires back with its SA or HA. The attack value is applied against the defense value, while the defenders SA/HA is applied against the attacker's toughness. There is a little more involved, but this is the bare bones explanation.

Darn! Battlemoose types faster!

 

[Kagernaut]

Ah, good to know, thanks guys.

 

[Jamey]

As far as the rest of the original topic, I like CAV in poor infrastructure terrain (especially against minors) and for anti-partisan duties. It's great in central Asia for countries like NatChi and Russia.

I have never found a situation where I'd prefer RART to ART. The higher supply is just too big of a drawback. Plus, the SA of RART doesn't catch up until I've filled out my OOB.

 

[Pro_Consul]

It's worth noting that if you aren't going to fight Armor, going LARM/MOT/AC/AC gives further discounts and a bit of a speed boost without impairing stats too much. Infantry with AT pierce both ARM and LARM and infantry without AT won't pierce either.

When I next fire up the game I will double check, but I am fairly sure similar model year INF will indeed pierce LARM.

 

[Less]

When I next fire up the game I will double check, but I am fairly sure similar model year INF will indeed pierce LARM.

LARM will end up 1 point ahead of infantry if both are at the same year.

Basically LARM > everything not anti-tank or other armor. ARM > LARM. HARM > ARM and anti-tank brigades. SHARM > everything.

If you aren't intending to fight either LARM or ARM, LARM is generally more efficient.

If you planning to fight either LARM or ARM then ARM will give you armor advantage vs. the LARM and ensure you are on even footing vs. the ARM. Otherwise AT/TD brings you back to even footing.

If you are planning to fight HARM/SHARM, either bring HARM/SHARM yourself or live with suffering the penalty for not piercing armor and flank/human wave in response.

 

[Secret Master]

You forgot one:

Air power > everything

If Hitler tells Speer to build ARM, I bomb it. If Hitler tells Speer to build HARM, I bomb it. If Hitler tells Speer to build SHARM, I still bomb it. Speer is going to run out of IC, rares, Nazis, and even replacement clone Hitlers before I run out of bombs to drop on German tanks.

The lesson is that if you don't intend to maintain parity in the armor/penetration race, you can opt for the air power option. I'm not suggesting that air power is a complete replacement for having your own armor, but I am suggesting that it doesn't matter how many Maus Hitler has if he can't cover them with the Luftwaffe. And air power only gets more lethal to ground targets as the war progresses, so the edge air power enjoys over even the most expensive tanks increases.

As an exercise, I ran the Soviets with no AT, TD, or armor of any kind. I invested all that leadership and IC into INTs and TACs. If memory serves, the Germans got about 3 months of use out of their armor before the Luftwaffe and panzers were rendered useless due to strength and ORG damage. It was an object lesson I've never forgotten.

 

[Valkyrie123]

I typically build a lot of cavalry and AC, usually in the form of 2xCav plus 1 AC divisions, playing Germany on hard, TFH vanilla, single player. I then merge these divisions into most of my corps HQs, which with the AC speed bonus (and the 1938 HQ movement tech) gives the Corps HQ the ability to move at 4.9 KPH when war kicks off in 1938/39. By the time I unlock the 1942 HQ movement tech, the HQ combined arms division (HQ plus 2 CAV now with plus 2 AC) has a maxed out base speed of 6.75 KPH, with the movement speed now limited by the starting 1938 Cav techs rather than the HQ brigade movement speed. (yes, I know some consider it gamey to attach brigades to HQs and use them in combat.) Using this build gives each infantry combat corps (1) at least a chance of having a speed boosted division that might be able to conduct an overrun or a tactical exploitation, at the cost of one or two AC brigades per corps. (2) It also means that most of the Corps Commanders (including the ones commanded by old guard logistic wizards) have gained the Battlemaster trait by the time the Lowlands and France have fallen. (3) These builds also help keep the mobile practical warm to help reduce the time and costs both of those annoyingly expensive mech brigades and of my fairly numerous 2xCav whack a mole anti-partisan divisions. (4) When I finally unlock the mechanized tech, I can swap out the experienced Cav brigades from the HQ corps (they have usually gained a fair amount of experience by then, so they make great mech) and I replace them with a couple of rookie Cav brigades. (I usually don't see the worth of upgrading experienced motorized divisions into mechanized divisions). (5) This build also helps the Panzer Corps HQs better keep up with the Panzer divisions without having to resort to Corps HQ strategic deployment. (6) Finally, having a number of these types of Corp HQs on the Eastern Front means that the ever inscrutable supply system is at least trying to funnel some fuel towards every combat corps, so that when I have to shift the Panzers from one part of the line to another, I have a better chance of not seeing that always annoying out of fuel message, or at least not having to see it for all that long a time.

 

[KyrionMyrthar]

Maybe HOI4. Right now, since unit firepower is so generic once you get past the HA/SA dichotomy, there's no real operational difference between units like this.

A pity, and hopefully something they work on.

 

[KyrionMyrthar]

You forgot one:

Air power > everything

If Hitler tells Speer to build ARM, I bomb it. If Hitler tells Speer to build HARM, I bomb it. If Hitler tells Speer to build SHARM, I still bomb it. Speer is going to run out of IC, rares, Nazis, and even replacement clone Hitlers before I run out of bombs to drop on German tanks.

The lesson is that if you don't intend to maintain parity in the armor/penetration race, you can opt for the air power option. I'm not suggesting that air power is a complete replacement for having your own armor, but I am suggesting that it doesn't matter how many Maus Hitler has if he can't cover them with the Luftwaffe. And air power only gets more lethal to ground targets as the war progresses, so the edge air power enjoys over even the most expensive tanks increases.

As an exercise, I ran the Soviets with no AT, TD, or armor of any kind. I invested all that leadership and IC into INTs and TACs. If memory serves, the Germans got about 3 months of use out of their armor before the Luftwaffe and panzers were rendered useless due to strength and ORG damage. It was an object lesson I've never forgotten.

You've given me something to chew on and perhaps try the next time I play the Soviet Union. Cavalry for exploitation with armored cars for mobile units. Hmm...

 

[Jamey]

You've given me something to chew on and perhaps try the next time I play the Soviet Union. Cavalry for exploitation with armored cars for mobile units. Hmm...

I'm now thinking about going CGM and building nothing but CAV, AC, and air power as the Soviets.

 

[Kagernaut]

I'm now thinking about going CGM and building nothing but CAV, AC, and air power as the Soviets.

I can tell you that would be a moderately fast arm, and also EXTREMELY cheap lol. Cav are very affordable.


I really have to disagree though with those who state that Airpower beats everything. It takes time to wear down an armored force with air power. Whats more, you need range; the distance between air bases in russia is extreme, and even if you had more, the Germans would use their own air power to defeat your bombers and interceptors and most likely their planes would be better. Then, you are unable to project your airpower.

CAS are the only thing with enough hard attack that its worth it to deploy against tanks. But, they have very short range. Almost useless unless you are right next door. TACs could be used, but who can be bothered to build a fleet of those? Plus, they just get shot down.

Don't get me wrong, I very much approve of air power and strive to have either air superiority or an answer to it in each of my games. But some things just can't be done with air---at some points, you need a proper counter of the land or naval kind.

 

[Jamey]

I can tell you that would be a moderately fast arm, and also EXTREMELY cheap lol. Cav are very affordable.

I really have to disagree though with those who state that Airpower beats everything. It takes time to wear down an armored force with air power. Whats more, you need range; the distance between air bases in russia is extreme, and even if you had more, the Germans would use their own air power to defeat your bombers and interceptors and most likely their planes would be better. Then, you are unable to project your airpower.

CAS are the only thing with enough hard attack that its worth it to deploy against tanks. But, they have very short range. Almost useless unless you are right next door. TACs could be used, but who can be bothered to build a fleet of those? Plus, they just get shot down.

Don't get me wrong, I very much approve of air power and strive to have either air superiority or an answer to it in each of my games. But some things just can't be done with air---at some points, you need a proper counter of the land or naval kind.

TAC is fine against armor because the AI doesn't build low softness divisions very much. I've certainly never had a problem with that.

Keep in mind that part of a low unit diversity plan is that you can focus your research very tightly. If you go with this sort of plan, you will be up to date or ahead in the areas you focus on.

Also, you can also spend surplus IC on things like infrastructure and airfields so that you can force your enemy to fight in the shade of your air power.

 

[Pro_Consul]

I really have to disagree though with those who state that Airpower beats everything. It takes time to wear down an armored force with air power. Whats more, you need range; the distance between air bases in russia is extreme, and even if you had more,

One presumes that building airbases at which to station your air units would be included in the process of building a large air force in the first place. It's kind of implicit, or so I thought.

the Germans would use their own air power to defeat your bombers and interceptors and most likely their planes would be better. Then, you are unable to project your airpower.

Umm....no. It is no stretch at all for the Sovs to have 1939 air techs, which is exactly what Germany will have when Barbarossa begins. And it is also no stretch for the Soviets to have a significantly larger airforce than Germany at that point.

CAS are the only thing with enough hard attack that its worth it to deploy against tanks. But, they have very short range. Almost useless unless you are right next door. TACs could be used, but who can be bothered to build a fleet of those? Plus, they just get shot down.

Both would be ideal, but in truth TACs can do the job. TACs are weighted more toward soft attack than hard, true, but as Jamey rightly points out, German divisions are not going to have super low softness. And TACs do have some hard attack ability in any case. To my thinking the main advantage of CAS in this situation is that they are much cheaper than TAC. At that stage the TACs might be better used for interdiction, to slow the enemy mobile forces down so that they can be bombed repeatedly while in motion by your CAS, when they are most vulnerable to air attack.

But some things just can't be done with air---at some points, you need a proper counter of the land or naval kind.

I agree. Only land units can take and hold land. But I have on numerous occasions done precisely what you are saying cannot be done, so I can say with very high confidence that you are mistaken. In fact, I have done it while my entire air force was under AI control, so I was not even taking advantage of the human player's unbalancing manual control abilities. In short it doesn't require any particular level of skill on the part of the player; just a build and research scheme to provide the AI with the required air forces in time for the war. I would wager very, very big bucks that SM has also done it many times; the way he described it seemed to me to speak of experience, not theorizing.

 

[Secret Master]

I really have to disagree though with those who state that Airpower beats everything. It takes time to wear down an armored force with air power.

Last time I did it, it took 3-4 months to do it. With a good use of rivers and marshes as a defensive line (you don't bother trying to stop the Germans in Poland), you should be able to hold out well.

Whats more, you need range; the distance between air bases in russia is extreme, and even if you had more, the Germans would use their own air power to defeat your bombers and interceptors and most likely their planes would be better.

Didn't I mention getting air superiority first as a prerequisite? Of course, you have to neutralize the Luftwaffe.

You don't even necessarily need tech parity to do it. If you have 1 tech level lower in aircraft (say 1939 versus 1941), you can make up the difference by having twice as many planes. Great air force by July of 1941 is possible.

As for range, TACs already have decent range, but so do MR. MR aren't as good at killing enemies as INT, but they don't suck at it, either.

CAS are the only thing with enough hard attack that its worth it to deploy against tanks. But, they have very short range. Almost useless unless you are right next door. TACs could be used, but who can be bothered to build a fleet of those?

You've never spammed TACs before, have you? Who was it recently that summed it up nicely? Something along the lines of "You use a stack of 30 TACs to send divisions back to Berlin in a single airstrike." While I won't abuse air supply to make it possible to utilize 30 TACs in a single air strike, I can and do employ 30 TACs in the theater over the course of a few months to sap strength and ORG from German armor. It's quite effective. Remember that softness is what matters when it comes to HA and SA, not whether tanks are present in a division. I don't care what kind of tanks you have; if your division has a softness of 65%, TACs will maul it. And aircraft don't give a damn about your armor rating; even the crappiest bi-planes penetrate all armored units.

I don't use CAS as the Soviets because of both the range problem and I don't find there are enough targets around to justify their use.

Don't get me wrong, I very much approve of air power and strive to have either air superiority or an answer to it in each of my games. But some things just can't be done with air---at some points, you need a proper counter of the land or naval kind.

Give me a horde of MIL, some artillery, and enough aircraft to darken the sky, and I will show you a Wehrmacht that can be defeated with less ground lost than the historical Barbarossa.

 

[shierholzer]

It would seem like when cavalry was actually used as a fighting force

WW1 saw the last successful classic cavalry charges, the few WW2 had, were horrible fails. Usually cavalry formations of WW2 went into battle dismounted - horses were just there transportation.

Especially considering the fact that the Soviet Rocket Arty put the fear of God into the Germans every time.

Fear not casualties.

This would seem to indicate that they could be used for partisan suppression duty

For nations able to afford paratroops, paratroops are the way to go after partisans. Others may use cavalry or militia.

or by nations that don't really have the means to supply motorized infantry.

A country which is not able to afford mot, has no use for cavalry either.

I guess they could in theory be used for partisan hunting as well.

If they had frontage, they were a prime choice.

it's still useful to be able to deal with harder targets from time to time.

Since TFH each frontline province needs their own AT-brigade anyways.

Rocket artillery is cheap & fast to produce, and towards the end of the war, as superior soft attack compared to regular artillery.

WW2 ends way to fast ingame to allow (SP)RART getting a real advantage.

Something along the lines of "You use a stack of 30 TACs to send divisions back to Berlin in a single airstrike."

Probably me.

It takes time to wear down an armored force with air power.

Time? Since TFH capped the airborne stacking penalty at 80%, it's a matter of planes - not time.
Panzers on breakthrough rampage? Gatter everything that carries bombs and teleport them back to Berlin in a hour or two.

But some things just can't be done with air---at some points, you need a proper counter of the land or naval kind.

Capturing territory and taking action against some french islands near antarctica (forgot how they are called, zero infra and under South Africa...).
Airborne is the way to go for any of the big four (Japan is too weak in LS to go for long range TRA early, and China too low on starting techs). The percentage of IC invested in airborne power is limited by your personal gameyness - not by other needs.