Why not a division of width outside of 20?

[Carrierguy]

Okay. I have played HOI 4 now for over 100 hours and I, like everyone else, have always assumed that since the max Combat Width is 80 I should be using a factor of that and like to keep my divisions around a combat width of 20.

However, I was reading the Wiki and noticed something interesting:

"Combat is resolved in one hour turns, where both the attacking and defending divisions each randomly choose an opposing division to fight against this turn."​

Divisions that do not fit into the Combat Width of 80 are put into reserve and:

Divisions that do not fit on the frontline at the start of combat end up in reserves and will have a chance to join combat every hour as long as there is room.​

Now looking at this I am wondering of the rule of 80 really matters.

For instance. You have 4 divisions of 20 each. In have 3 divisions of 27 lets say. Combat starts. All of your divisions are on the front line. Only to of my divisions are on the front line with 1 in reserve. The computer pics only one division from each of us to fight. My divisions are stronger than yours since they have more troops, the result is I have a better chance of winning. This being said as well, if my reserve division does join it is going to be stronger than your normal divisions.

The only problem I see with this is that according to the Wiki, if both of my divisions retreat than my extra division serves no purpose.

 

[mursolini]

Because, "The computer pics only one division from each of us to fight" doesn`t happen. A full width of divisions fight other full width of divisions. Targets are picked randomly, but all 4 of 20 width divising will be firing at your divisions at the same time.

 

[Protosszocker]

27*3=81 means just 2 of your divisions fight against all 4 enemy divisions at a time. so combat width of 54 vs 80. your firepower will be much lower so you will loose much more than needed (if you defend of course you still can win)

 

[jamesd]

27*3=81 means just 2 of your divisions fight against all 4 enemy divisions at a time. so combat width of 54 vs 80. your firepower will be much lower so you will loose much more than needed (if you defend of course you still can win)

That's not right - at 27 you'd get all 3 divisions into the battle, but there would be a small penalty applied due to being slightly over maximum width. If there's any width left over, an extra division can always join the fight unless the over width penalty would be too high. For example at times your forces may have used say 78 of 80 maximum width, but the penalty for another 39 width division joining the fight would be too high, so it sits in the reserves with a zero chance to reinforce until such time as one of the other divisions drops out.

 

[ringhloth]

That's not right - at 27 you'd get all 3 divisions into the battle, but there would be a small penalty applied due to being slightly over maximum width. If there's any width left over, an extra division can always join the fight unless the over width penalty would be too high. For example at times your forces may have used say 78 of 80 maximum width, but the penalty for another 39 width division joining the fight would be too high, so it sits in the reserves with a zero chance to reinforce until such time as one of the other divisions drops out.

The penalty also is not that large - IIRC, it's just a little bit more than the stats you gain by having overwidth divisions. So if you have to choose between a poorly designed 20 width unit versus a well designed 21 width unit (say, the difference between piercing and not) it's better to have the well designed "sub-optimal" width division.

 

[grandad1982]

I don't go by the ridged 20 or multiples of. I'll go a few points over quite happily, though rarely more than 5 or 6 over. I find it more fun to have that flexibility in the template and I find the penalty not really an issue.

 

[Dalnar]

When playing Soviets, I'm using 26,6 width divisions (11INF+3ART) thanks to mass assault), it works very well for a long front with marshall on defense, but for attack I'm still using 20 width divisions with a general to pierce lines.

 

[actioncradd]

By and large, combat width is the most overrated group-think concern. There are specific sized divisions that are suboptimal if you run uniform size divisions across the board, (someone has a spreadsheet somewhere) but it's mostly a wash when it comes down to penalty vs combat strength. Do what makes you feel good- and what makes sense with what you have available. Addendum: the way the stats interact, bigger is better- 40 width divisions do incredible damage to 20 width ones with little drawback (org)

 

[P3D]

Because effectively anything but 20/40 (23/45 with OD) wide would overreinforce and give a lot of overwidth penalty in either 80 or 120-wide battles.

 

[Meglok]

Depends on where the divisions are fighting and the type of division. If they are marine and you are only using 2-3 to invade various places a 26 width might be optimal. Or if it is a small front with few divisions fighting in mountains like say the Caucasus you might want larger templates because reserve divisions are unlikely.

The 20 width breakpoint really only applies if you are stacking a bunch of divisions in reserve and want to optimize reinforcement min max. Going a little over in SP for immersion or historical isn't going to kill you.

 

[Daddl]

The penalty also is not that large - IIRC, it's just a little bit more than the stats you gain by having overwidth divisions. So if you have to choose between a poorly designed 20 width unit versus a well designed 21 width unit (say, the difference between piercing and not) it's better to have the well designed "sub-optimal" width division.

I believe 21 width is always fine, but the width in battle changes quite often due to tactics or additional attack directions, and when it is reduced from 80 to 60 or 40, or enlarged to 120 it doesn't work as well anymore with numbers like 26 or 27.

Even 40 width divisions have the problem that you loose out a lot of potential when the width is lowered to 60, and that happens quite often in some narrow regions. Tactics reducing width by 25% are applied very often.

Against the AI, it doesn't really matter, but any other width than 20 (or 10) potentially locks your divisions out of combat in some situations. Thats surely worth it sometimes, but that depends heavily on your enemies composition and can't be said in general.

 

[Alex_brunius]

I believe 21 width is always fine, but the width in battle changes quite often due to tactics or additional attack directions, and when it is reduced from 80 to 60 or 40, or enlarged to 120 it doesn't work as well anymore with numbers like 26 or 27.

That depends really... The penalties are not that massive (never above -33%), they never apply if you don't fill the width anyways, and they are counteracted by the fact that you do get to bring both more org and more total attack to the battle.

If you look at 27 width divisions on a 60 or 80 width battle it works just fine ( Use 90% or 101% of available width ). For 120 you however do get 135 width into the combat and are hit with a bit bigger -25% penalty ( but you get to have 12.5% more ORG and firepower in the combat so effectively it's not as bad as it looks ).

Even 40 width divisions have the problem that you loose out a lot of potential when the width is lowered to 60, and that happens quite often in some narrow regions.

The biggest issue is that divisions of width 24+ can't have more then a single division in 40 width combats, and divisions of width 35+ can't have more then a single division in 60 width combats. This means that as long as the width reducing tactics is active, it's impossible to reinforce at all ( you have no room ), and all enemy fire ends up on your single division which will retreat if it loses no matter if you have 10+ divisions with full org in the reserve ready to join battle.