Line arty has been out of fashion for like 2 years now?
I can get why people still use it - why fix something that isn't broken right. But if we are purely judging by stats and costs then really no.
- 2
- 1
Why mass assault is just bad.
- Thread starter CantGetNoSleep
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I can get why people still use it - why fix something that isn't broken right. But if we are purely judging by stats and costs then really no.
I just started playing HOI4 a few months ago, so I'm curious why line arty is "out of fashion". I don't use them much myself because they seem awfully costly in width and negative org and production resources, so I often use only support artillery or one line artillery for 20w and two for a 40w.
Is 10/0 still better if I don't have industry for tanks? 7/2 seems to have that extra attack 10/0 doesn't have.
Well, on your own you discovered what a lot of us learned over time. 10-0 infantry can hold the line just fine. There have been many posts about using infantry on the attack and making 40w infantry divisions with 4 line artillery. Personally, it just seems weird that artillery is not of primary importance in any division, especially defending infantry.
- 10
- 3
If you play defence or as a supporting country MA is the way. Guerilla is insane on defence. With a good general in low infra, and difficult terrain its impossible to break. My favorite MA countries are Italy and UK. MA allows you to focus research on navy and air.
- 1
In a lot of domains of the game, there is tension between game balance and historical accuracy. It seems to me like artillery is one such instance and the developers went with balance over historical accuracy.
Personally, I'd be inclined to make ART a tad more powerful but more expensive to produce (e.g., require two tungsten or something).
Personally, I'd be inclined to make ART a tad more powerful but more expensive to produce (e.g., require two tungsten or something).
In game, Artillery isn't needed for defense as has been pointed out (actually lowers division defense when added in place of a infantry battalion) but pushing without Art on an infantry division is just pain. So I don't agree that Art is out of fashion. I love it! But maybe I'm just pepega
- 1
It's never out for support
number of units, width and - modifiers are a factor.
Some one on another thread had an idea about heavy support arty and light field arty, I really liked.
Also given a boon by signal company.
number of units, width and - modifiers are a factor.
Some one on another thread had an idea about heavy support arty and light field arty, I really liked.
Also given a boon by signal company.
- 1
Basically 7/2 was the meta before patch 1.5. IIRC the devs then reduced the attacking stats on arty massively to the point that it was no longer cost efficient compared to add line arty.
Oh and just to make things clear - I said LINE arty is out of fashion, not support arty. They are distinct things.
I dont want to too derail this thread, but all I would say is every single nation has capacity for tanks, even if that's just 1 or 2 divisions of it. Infantry, be it 7/2 or 10/0, does not have any sufficient amount of breakthrough to do an effective attack. You just throw more men and equipment away by attacking with them. If you are a country that is tight with either of those, it feels counter-intuitive to do infantry attacks.
And if you use them on defence, there are little reasons to prefer 7/2 to 10/0 when you paid more in costs but get less defence.
- 2
- 1
- 1
If a country has a arty and infantry high command, would an arty division be "viable" then ? Or is line infantry generally still too expensive even then?
Another idea, that sort of works with yours, is that instead of making artillery more powerful and more expensive, give the Signals and Recon company both a 10% buff to artillery (20% total between them) in 1936 and increase the buff with each research level. I suggest this, because the ability to lob large explosives ten miles down range is a huge combat multiplier. Even the Germans did not bother with much improvements in their artillery, they focused on making the tubes they had respond quicker and accurately, which was a function of recon and signals. The Americans, with their overwhelming material advantage, built a signals and recon (forward observers) system that could perform time on target barrages with mixed batteries across multiple divisions called in from a two man patrol far ahead of the front line.
For game purposes, the Signals company could increase divisional organization by a substantial amount and accelerate planning and decelerate its loss when using the battle planner. Signals could also give a 10% artillery buff in 1936 that increases with research levels. Recon could also give 10% artillery buff in 1936, increasing with research, on top of its 10% speed buff, that could increase with research.
Making both Signals and Recon have buffs like this would make it expensive and complicated to get the best out of artillery, as it was during the war. The big boost to artillery effectiveness has always been spotting the enemy faster and landing shells even faster. Recon was what got the artillery on target, but it was Signals that let Recon call in more artillery and faster. Each new tech level of Signals and Recon would cost more in IC, men, and equipment to represent that these support units are getting larger with more capabilities.
To encourage Signals and Recon company development and reflect reality, the last two techs for Signals and Recon could also give a buff to CAS. The last year or two of the war, saw some ground units talking directly to CAS overhead and directing their runs.
- 7
- 3
Yes, 11-6 are sometimes used as specialized mountain or amphibious breakthrough divisions for nations such as Australia. The are used to break a tile which can then be filled by other divisions to hold. I am more a fan of splitting the priority weights in a 7-7-4 to get what is effectively a 14-4 that counts as an arty division for the purposes of high command.
- 2
Would something like 10/1/1 Inf/Art/AA be a viable division? With the width reduction you can move the support companies to the front line, I've been thinking.
Alternatively, a 15/8 (or 20/4) Inf/HT (+S.Art) sounds like something the Soviets might use for attack. Anyone tried that one?
Alternatively, a 15/8 (or 20/4) Inf/HT (+S.Art) sounds like something the Soviets might use for attack. Anyone tried that one?
Line arty is just too inefficient. Support arty is more soft attack per gun. And if you're going MA doctrine, it's because you're on the defensive. Though I do advocate for 12-1 inf-AA out of all the oddly-shaped divisions, it's the least odd. 20.2 width divisions will always go overwidth by at most 1%, which is -2% stats. That's not great, but it's much better than 19.2w 12-0 that will sometimes waste width and sometimes go way over, or 20.8w 13-0 which always goes over by 4%, so -8% stats. Support AA is better than line AA, but not to quite the same degree that support arty is better than line arty.
Spacemarines are.... not great. If anything, I would make them superheavies so the loss of speed doesn't detract. And make them 11-10-2 with SPAA. Infantry are just plain bad at attacking, so the extra room you get from their reduced width should be spent on bringing more tanks, not bringing more infantry.
- 1
- 1
There are few countries that "don't have industry for tanks", and for those you're better served just pumping out more rifles to fill the front with more bodies faster than spending more IC on line artillery for exceedingly marginal stat differences.
You really don't need that many factories to be able to equip a single tank division or two, and that extra punch can help even smaller nations pull off some major encirclements.
I have argued for 4 years now that Mass Assault is the worst doctrine. It is outshined by every other doctrine in the game. Not a single update has been done to it since launch. I have no idea why development and balancing issues exist after so long.
- 3
- 2
I still use it sometimes. Not to the extent I used it in the old days, but I still make use of it in certain situations.
Never, HP reduces losses.
Not for delaying attacks.
That's just not true. It can be critical against good divisions. I've lost due to divisions not reinforcing in time. Sure its not a problem in single player where you will never fight anything competent but otherwise you will need to cycle units.
- 1