I hear again and again people raving about the mass assault -0.4 division width (which lets you pack 2 more infantry in the template) and I think I need to put a stop to it. Mass assault is bad, in every way possible. The only time you might want to consider it is if you're really genuinely in desperate need of manpower, but even then, upping the conscription laws will likely be better.
Why? Take a look at the two template below (pure infantry with 4 support companies) which both use 1936 techs but have all the doctrines researched (L for MA, R&R for Superior firepower).
Superior Firepower (SF)
Mass Assault (MA)
What do you see?
Better Soft Attack? Superior firepower - by a lot (20%)
Better Defense? Mass assault, by a smidgen (5%)
Less Consumption? Superior firepower (15%)! Yes, those 2 extra divisions mean the MA template ends up consuming more...
Cheaper to build? Superior firepower! (15%)
SF has better org too, better recovery and more. Where MA is better, it's only by a tiny smidgen. Given SF template is cheaper, that won't matter anyway.
So do yourself a favour next time you play and avoid MA.
Why? Take a look at the two template below (pure infantry with 4 support companies) which both use 1936 techs but have all the doctrines researched (L for MA, R&R for Superior firepower).
Superior Firepower (SF)
Mass Assault (MA)
What do you see?
Better Soft Attack? Superior firepower - by a lot (20%)
Better Defense? Mass assault, by a smidgen (5%)
Less Consumption? Superior firepower (15%)! Yes, those 2 extra divisions mean the MA template ends up consuming more...
Cheaper to build? Superior firepower! (15%)
SF has better org too, better recovery and more. Where MA is better, it's only by a tiny smidgen. Given SF template is cheaper, that won't matter anyway.
So do yourself a favour next time you play and avoid MA.
- 21
- 9
- 6
- 1