• 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.

CantGetNoSleep

Banned
30 Badges
Sep 5, 2019
502
1.247
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Hearts of Iron 4: Arms Against Tyranny
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
  • Hearts of Iron IV: By Blood Alone
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Battle for Bosporus
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Hearts of Iron IV: La Resistance
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
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)
Superior Firepower.png


Mass Assault (MA)
Mass Assault.png


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
  • 6Like
  • 1
Reactions:
I think the rave is tied to the 40 width adding 5 more battalions. 15% reinforce rate is also nice.

Edit: MA is also nice for paratroops.
 
Last edited:
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.
Better HP? Mass Assault - by a lot (19%)
Better breakthrough? Mass Assault (12%)

In my opinion there is not much reason to add recon to this template and it further skews the result for SF-RR. MA-L does a few things for armor that SF-RR doesn't (including the supply consumption reduction). The -0.4 combat width is just one bonus among many.
 
  • 5Like
  • 3
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
The Mass Assault right side path is a gravy train for those countries it makes sense for, e.g. China. There's tons of benefit there at very little cost. It's basically unrivaled in pure stalling power, between the big boosts to recovery rate, reinforce rate, and Guerrilla Tactics itself. I have mixed feelings about the boosts to resistance growth rate. While it's true that resistance builds really slowly, I don't think these small boosts really change that. I would have given them a resistance target boost instead.

I'll go a little further than bitmode did here, and say that the countries for whom Mass Assault is attractive will have a bare minimum of support companies, probably one at most, either Support Artillery or Engineers. China can get a free boost to entrenchment from the French aid tree in your national focuses, basically getting the biggest benefit from Engineers for free. These countries tend to have poor industry, and while support companies are infinitely efficient in terms of added combat effectiveness per combat width, they tend to be inefficient in terms of combat effectiveness per IC. The only real exception is Support Artillery, due to that support company being too good all around. While it's true that Superior Firepower is going to be the best tree most of the time when you're a country that can afford to fill the combat width wherever they're fighting, this will rarely be the case for countries taking Mass Assault (right.)

Mass Assault left, and Grand Battleplan right, give supply consumption reductions that almost justify those trees entirely on their own. Sometimes, supply issues really are the main impediment in a campaign. The Soviet Union has good reason to go for Deep Battle; it essentially has their name on it for a reason.
 
  • 7Like
  • 3
Reactions:
Pre DCL's I thought the doctrine was taken from Japan's play book, they even have a 24 width division, yet they default Grand battle plan.
extra digging in on Atolls can be duplicated with a fort. Natural fort in their case.
 
Never make a 20 width mass assault infantry division. The supply reduction is extremely useful. Some people view supply grace as a critical breakthrough stat. Entrenchment is good. Reinforce rate means you don't need signal companies. The extra HP is great. Never pick a doctrine for the manpower bonus.

Pre DCL's I thought the doctrine was taken from Japan's play book, they even have a 24 width division, yet they default Grand battle plan.
extra digging in on Atolls can be duplicated with a fort. Natural fort in their case.
Not even slightly. Infiltration is the doctrine specifically for them. Deep battle is Russian doctrine. Mass mobilization is china.
 
  • 8
  • 1
Reactions:
I'm using it a 25 battalion division, the man power is needed and the .4 width 20210104013616_1.jpg
And yeah no fuel support.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Better HP? Mass Assault - by a lot (19%)
Better breakthrough? Mass Assault (12%)
When's the last time you've lost a division because it had run out of HP? It's always because they get encircled and destroyed and then HP doesn't matter. The only thing I that might be true is that more HP means less loss of experience when the division gets new manpower - but given retraining time is quite short, I'm not that fussed. And again, SF will have 15% more divisions to defend given IC costs, so it's not that big a deal.

The breakthrough is moot given the much lower attack.

In my opinion there is not much reason to add recon to this template and it further skews the result for SF-RR. MA-L does a few things for armor that SF-RR doesn't (including the supply consumption reduction). The -0.4 combat width is just one bonus among many.
Choosing better tactics is underrated. Having the better tactic / countering correctly, will give you a 10%-25% bonus in combat. It's huge. Here:

Never make a 20 width mass assault infantry division. The supply reduction is extremely useful. Some people view supply grace as a critical breakthrough stat. Entrenchment is good. Reinforce rate means you don't need signal companies. The extra HP is great. Never pick a doctrine for the manpower bonus.
40 width: same result. The extra divisions end up using up A LOT more supply in the MA template. And this time I've just done it with AA and Art. Here:

SF 40w
SF 40w.png


MA 40w
MA 40w.png


Yes, this time the defence is a full 10% better - but the template costs 20% more. I'd rather have 20% more units...

Reinforce rate: another over-rated stat. It only really matters if you're fighting tanks (so only for Russia in Barbarossa). I've literally never seen units fail to reinforce in time vs. infantry. Also, if you want to reinforce quicker, use 20w - they'll reinforce quicker than 40w. Though of course, you'll take more losses. But if you're Russia, then here's the 40w SF with radio 1: still 10% cheaper than MA and better reinforce rate.

SF40w with Radio
SF 40w Radio.png


PS: Russia has the NKVD branch (better IMHO), which gives extra 5% reinforce rate as a starter...
 
Last edited:
  • 5Like
  • 4
  • 2
  • 2
Reactions:
I like SF, I was using it before I started 40w
I got the MA idea from the video on the launcher.
You have convinced me to go back, thanks! :cool:
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
I like SF, I was using it before I started 40w
I got the MA idea from the video on the launcher.
You have convinced me to go back, thanks! :cool:
Pleasure - do give the top comment a like please - there's a lot of misguided folks out there that disagree with me it seems, so it'd be good to see some do see the light!
 
  • 7
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I'd like to test out some support styles, current game is perfect for it, CP in a stale mate with Allies. I was just about to break into Egypt when all my allies decided to help. I had to leave the area, Palestine/Sinai is stuffed. UK and US dominate the sea. I'm building a secret fleet in Kuwait to invade east Africa. For some reason they are obsessed with the Aegean, they could of conquered Italy a years ago.

I might be asking a bit much but can you provide shots of 40w for complete Air land battle, Shock & Awe, Deep battle and Mass mobilization?
I'll like it just for getting me to think outside the box. :)
 
I'd like to test out some support styles, current game is perfect for it, CP in a stale mate with Allies. I was just about to break into Egypt when all my allies decided to help. I had to leave the area, Palestine/Sinai is stuffed. UK and US dominate the sea. I'm building a secret fleet in Kuwait to invade east Africa. For some reason they are obsessed with the Aegean, they could of conquered Italy a years ago.

I might be asking a bit much but can you provide shots of 40w for complete Air land battle, Shock & Awe, Deep battle and Mass mobilization?
I'll like it just for getting me to think outside the box. :)
You can play with it yourself here https://taw.github.io/hoi4/
 
  • 2Like
  • 2
  • 1Love
Reactions:
When's the last time you've lost a division because it had run out of HP?

Running completely out of HP isn't that common. Units taking substantial HP damage from a combination of ground attack and lengthy combats can be common. And where HP is often undervalued is in the aggregate. Divisions with higher total HP values lose less equipment and fighting capability per HP lost.

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.

Not that I like Mass Assault in the base game that much, but I wouldn't want anyone to undervalue a boost to HP when considering division construction.

PS: Russia has the NKVD branch (better IMHO), which gives extra 5% reinforce rate as a starter...

And that's why I don't like Mass Assault in the base game. One of the countries that might want to make the most of Mass Assault's boosts to reinforce rate.... gets a nice reinforce rate boost from its NF tree. Which it can then make use of when using another doctrine. :rolleyes:
 
  • 5Like
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
May I ask, why nobody is mentioning artillery?

My school of thought is, that any infantery devision needs line arty do be useful. I normally go 7-2 or 14-4 (inf-art), together with SF doctrine.
 
  • 6
Reactions:
personally I never like line support as they seem to break so easy and require more production by large amount.
requires a major country to pull off well.
Then again I've only begone to play with this new division design tool. :)

Edit: now the question is...What stat has the most value? Varied by theater I'd imagine, but one has to stand out, like recovery rate or breakthrough?
 
Last edited:
If you want to go infantry, I recommend grand battle plan. The extra dig in is useful, as is the extra planning bonus. I only use superior firepower when I go mainly arty frontline battalions. I never used mass assault though.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
What stat has the most value?
It's the stat you lack ;)

If your division has tiny ORG or HP, the division is worthless trash.

For attack you want to have high Soft Attack, higher breakthrough than enemy attack to be able to attack longer, high hardness to be able to attack longer (defender is usually dealing WAY less hard attack than Soft Attack) and some armor that is higher than the enemy armor for the Armor Attack Bonus.

For defense you want ORG to be able to hold longer, more defense than the enemy attack, as much attack as possible to deorg the attacker and maybe overcome the breakthrough. (Hardness and Armor are also nice but usually too expensive for denfensive units.)

If you have supply or fuel issues you want low supply use or low fuel use.

And so on, and so on.

If you know that the enemy will be have good tanks, you want Tanks with high hard attack and higher piercing than his Armor and higher Armor than his piercing. If not all is viable you maybe want more and cheaper tanks...

And so on and so on...

I think the land battle mechanic is quite decent after all, otherwise you could give easy answers to the doctrines and stat questions. But you cant...
 
40 width: same result.
If you want similar template for MA it would be more along the lines of 2ART+2AA (without support) instead of extra row of infantry. While more expensive, it pays off in the long run due to how attrition works.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: