Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Why mass assault is just bad.

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Hearts of Iron IV 45518 Bug Reports 15215 After Action Reports (AAR)
Show only dev responses
Harin said:
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.
Click to expand...

I totally agree with this because modern artillery is extremely effective when tightly coordinated with forward observers. Combined with higher rates of fire, small batteries of guns are actually more effective than mass rockets because of the high accuracy. Modern CAS is like artillery and is often guided by the same forward observers used for artillery. Forward observers are like a combo of Signals and Recon so a combination of the two with high tech levels should give bonuses to artillery and CAS attack, as well as org and planning. Should be a part of the Superior Firepower doctrine.

This might also help make line artillery more worthwhile to include in division templates.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Do I win a prize for most disagreed with thread ever? Or perhaps I'm not even close yet...

STABBY5 said:
Not for delaying attacks.
Click to expand...
Not sure I get that. Breakthrough only applies to attack. Or do you mean when pinning?

STABBY5 said:
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.
Click to expand...
As China facing a Japan with 14/4s, and they've taken all Marco Polo bridge decisions without attacking you when you still have all the Army reforms to do, and they have massive air superiority, then yeah, sure, it can happen you get retreated before you can reinforce. But that's just China/Japan dynamic being so broken and easily abused in MP.

And again, if you're using 40 width for defence, you're shooting yourself in the foot and massively increasing the chances of not reinforcing in time since you can, at best, field 2-3 divisions in the front line, vs double that if you're using 20 width. Use 20 width and the problem goes away. There's an interesting math problem in there, but gut-feel tells me 20width probably has 4x higher reinforce rate...? (2x more likely to retreat, 2x number of units to try to fill the gap).


desphorin said:
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.
Click to expand...
Don't agree with that, sorry. For the same width a tank division costs 3-4x as much as infantry division (7/2 or 14/4) and has zero more soft attack. Yes the breakthrough is nice and you'll take less hits overall, but I'd much rather have 8 divisions of 14/4s than 2 tank divisions - they'll be vastly more effective.

On top of that, tanks only work if you have air superiority - else they slow down and get shredded by CAS. So the IC cost of having an effective tank force is closer to 7-8x that of infantry. Sure, if you have the industry, then they make sense. But that's realistically only Germany, Russia and the US. Even the UK can't afford to build tanks as they need to focus so much on air.

And yes, in MP games where all nations coordinate really well, you can ultra-specialise and Hungary or SA can build 1 or 2 units of heavies, etc. But that's only because all nations are really just acting as one. In SP, that'll never work.

Also, the research needed is prohibitive in SP as you'll have huge gaps elsewhere. Only ultra-specialisation in MP.
 
Last edited:
  • 1
Reactions:
CantGetNoSleep said:
Or do you mean when pinning?
Click to expand...
I do.
CantGetNoSleep said:
And again, if you're using 40 width for defence, you're shooting yourself in the foot and massively increasing the chances of not reinforcing in time since you can, at best, field 2-3 divisions in the front line, vs double that if you're using 20 width. Use 20 width and the problem goes away. There's an interesting math problem in there, but gut-feel tells me 20width probably has 4x higher reinforce rate...? (2x more likely to retreat, 2x number of units to try to fill the gap).
Click to expand...
20 widths aren't great. 400 attack 40 width division vs two 200 defense 20 width divisions means that 200 attack gets through. Compared to a 40 width division of 400 defense, nothing gets through. 20 width gives twice the org but org regenerates. As you said its harder for it to reinforce so you use signal companies, doctrine or other bonus.
 
  • 2
  • 2
Reactions:
Secret Master said:
But consider this carefully: when you last stand, you are trading HP for ORG. And when you last stand, it's usually at a critical moment to prevent an encirlement or something equally bad. Having more HP matters there.
Click to expand...
Right but... you have 15% less org in MA in the first place, so you'll be needing to last stand 15% quicker in order to chomp through your 20% extra HP... I'd rather have to last stand later and less often IMHO.

In any case, last stand rarely seems to work for me. The minute anyone sees you last standing in MP, they'll pin all your divisions to stop them slipping through whatever gap you're last standing on.

Agreed on rest of your post though.
 
Last edited:
el nora said:
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.
Click to expand...

7-7-4 is what? Inf/?/arty?
 
Trouble I'm having with MA currently is making a new template in the middle of a massive messy war.
 
Massault is great because of it's supply bonuses. Especially in MP for bad nations like Italy and France. It's my favorite doctrine by far for non-majors.
 
  • 3Like
Reactions:
CantGetNoSleep said:
Do I win a prize for most disagreed with thread ever? Or perhaps I'm not even close yet...
Click to expand...
Those are rookie numbers. Talking in absolute terms about a topic with entrenched opinions is already a good start! But you need a topic with broader appeal - maybe NATO versus default icons? ;)
CantGetNoSleep said:
There's an interesting math problem in there, but gut-feel tells me 20width probably has 4x higher reinforce rate...? (2x more likely to retreat, 2x number of units to try to fill the gap).
Click to expand...
You don't get a better chance to reinforce the front by having more units in reserve. Only the reserve division with the best reinforce chance makes a roll.
 
  • 5Like
  • 5
  • 4Haha
  • 1
Reactions:
bitmode said:
You don't get a better chance to reinforce the front by having more units in reserve. Only the reserve division with the best reinforce chance makes a roll.
Click to expand...
I was wondering how that worked. Thanks for the info. Very helpful (and amusing) posts (incl the one after) altogether and much appreciated.
 
  • 4Like
Reactions:
bitmode said:
Correction: implementation is bugged; the first reserve division (that is valid to reinforce) makes the roll.
Click to expand...


Can I get more information? Im not really concerned about reserves or rolling for reserves at this time, I'm more interesting in if this sort of priority thing affects which divisions are pulled into the battle when the battle starts.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
bitmode said:
IIRC it is only used for reinforcing
Click to expand...
According to my testing, certain division designs are always called to defend when a battle starts before others. I have been unable to narrow down what exactly dictates which divisions are called, and was hoping this might have given me a new angle into it.
 
Corpse Fool said:
According to my testing, certain division designs are always called to defend when a battle starts before others. I have been unable to narrow down what exactly dictates which divisions are called, and was hoping this might have given me a new angle into it.
Click to expand...
On the attacking side, divisions are sorted in descending order by this metric:
  • (soft attack + hard attack + breakthrough + 1) * org * HP, for attackers
On the defending side the metric is:
  • (soft attack + hard attack + defense + general's level) * (1 + COMBAT_VALUE_ORG_IMPORTANCE * org + COMBAT_VALUE_STR_IMPORTANCE * HP) / 1000
(The last division by 1000 might be an attempt to address an overflow bug)

In either case the sorted divisions get inserted into the frontline until it is completely full.
 
Last edited:
  • 9
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Mass Assault doctrine has bonuses for Armored Cars. Does it make them more worthwhile to produce, versus light tanks for example? For historical authenticity I think it's reasonable to chose MA doctrine for the Soviets, Chinese, or some minors.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back