Beginner's Guide to Unit Types & Division Design

[Fulmen]

It “works”, but is not remotely worth the investment in most cases. Put the factories on tanks and planes instead and you get a better payoff. That’s my unscientific, anecdotal experience.

Mathematically this is correct. From purely that perspective only support ART is worth it anymore.

However 40 width pure rifles without line ART is pretty garbage on the attack, especially if the other guy is using 14-4s or the like, which can leave your flanks exposed as you push with your tanks.

Oh and as a general tip to most people in this thread, since 20 widths seem very popular with the singleplayer crowd: 40 widths are 2x better in combat. That advantage goes even further up when you account for all the pushes you're making because you're winning all the battles, provided the playing field is otherwise relatively even, because you have a better template. Only use 20 widths if you're mainly defending or can't otherwise cover the front.

 

[Ai Shizuka]

Thread is alive, so I guess I can post my question here.
My question is specific to France, but I'm also interested in the general opinion.
What's the best use of heavy tanks?
A few monster divisions in key positions, acting as an emergency response unit?
Or is it better to gradually add heavy tank battalions to my infantry divisions?
After a couple false starts, I'm about to enter the war with 4 armies (soon to be 5) of pure INF divisions (20 width with eng, support ART, hospital and support AT).

 

[Secret Master]

Mathematically this is correct. From purely that perspective only support ART is worth it anymore.

However 40 width pure rifles without line ART is pretty garbage on the attack, especially if the other guy is using 14-4s or the like, which can leave your flanks exposed as you push with your tanks.

Oh and as a general tip to most people in this thread, since 20 widths seem very popular with the singleplayer crowd: 40 widths are 2x better in combat. That advantage goes even further up when you account for all the pushes you're making because you're winning all the battles, provided the playing field is otherwise relatively even, because you have a better template. Only use 20 widths if you're mainly defending or can't otherwise cover the front.

Damn it, Fulmen, I was going to disagree with you just to be a contrarian, but you are spot on.

Your post does highlight that the mission you are trying to perform with your divisions does matter when it comes to composition. Divisions I put in Burma to defend the Raj look very different from divisions invading Sicily and Italy. Logistics matter, too.

 

[ltccone]

Damn it, Fulmen, I was going to disagree with you just to be a contrarian, but you are spot on.

Your post does highlight that the mission you are trying to perform with your divisions does matter when it comes to composition. Divisions I put in Burma to defend the Raj look very different from divisions invading Sicily and Italy. Logistics matter, too.

WHO you are playing makes a big difference too. As Germany, I always make 20w infantry divisions because, except for pinning attacks or cleaning up pockets, I never attack with them. When I played China I had 40w 25 battalion infantry divisions with only support artillery because I had NO tanks. I'm playing Italy right now and I have 14-4 40w divisions because I have few tanks.

 

[GAGA Extrem]

My problems with 40-width divisions has always been that they lack the ORG to sustain prolonged combat. Whenever I used them as SOV in my SP games, even the GER AI can threaten breakthroughs when attacking, forcing me to constantly shuffle defenders around, a problem I rarely have with 20-width designs.

...that being said, I am mostly playing a game of static defence along the rivers as SOV, backed up by a pretty large air force that makes it pretty irrelevant what I use for attacks - my dive bombers will make sure that the enemy suffers more losses.

 

[ltccone]

My problems with 40-width divisions has always been that they lack the ORG to sustain prolonged combat. Whenever I used them as SOV in my SP games, even the GER AI can threaten breakthroughs when attacking, forcing me to constantly shuffle defenders around, a problem I rarely have with 20-width designs.

...that being said, I am mostly playing a game of static defence along the rivers as SOV, backed up by a pretty large air force that makes it pretty irrelevant what I use for attacks - my dive bombers will make sure that the enemy suffers more losses.

I never use 40w divisions for defending, except for defending against an attack when they first capture a province.

 

[Jamey]

Oh and as a general tip to most people in this thread, since 20 widths seem very popular with the singleplayer crowd: 40 widths are 2x better in combat. That advantage goes even further up when you account for all the pushes you're making because you're winning all the battles, provided the playing field is otherwise relatively even, because you have a better template. Only use 20 widths if you're mainly defending or can't otherwise cover the front.

I don't use 40 width in SP because the AI doesn't do anything to counter it. If I build 40 width armor, I can just drive over the enemy and win with basically no resistance.

 

[Matoro_TBS]

Thread is alive, so I guess I can post my question here.
My question is specific to France, but I'm also interested in the general opinion.
What's the best use of heavy tanks?
A few monster divisions in key positions, acting as an emergency response unit?
Or is it better to gradually add heavy tank battalions to my infantry divisions?
After a couple false starts, I'm about to enter the war with 4 armies (soon to be 5) of pure INF divisions (20 width with eng, support ART, hospital and support AT).

As France, I put heavy armor to my infantry division to give them armor and breakthrough. Especially in early war where Germany won't have much hard attack stuff it feels very effective.

 

[ltccone]

I don't use 40 width in SP because the AI doesn't do anything to counter it. If I build 40 width armor, I can just drive over the enemy and win with basically no resistance.

I usually play SP with the Expert AI mod. The AI will use 40w divisions, so you had better too!

 

[Madzai]

So i watched video on basic combat mechanics and now everything is clear. But one question still remains. Is it possible to get high enough breakthrough for it to matter (as it it's "binary" - it's either higher than attack or not) without tanks or if you can't you just should not bother. For some one like Japan.

And about L.Arm. Everyone keep telling that those aren't worth it due to low armor. But if i play as Japan and can really afford those only, is it viable to use them because they have highest breakthrough value available for Japan?

 

[GAGA Extrem]

The big selling point of armor isn't breakthrough, it is hardness and armor. If you can obtain immunity from enemy piercing, your division gets some really hefy benefits. LARM has significantly worse stats in both categories, with only slightly lower cost per brigade (the per-tank cost is a lot cheaper, but you need more tanks per LARM brigade, which offsets most of the cost).

If you are just planning to use these tanks in China isn't really able to effectively counter any tanks you bring to the field early in the war. The question is, however, if you wouldn't be better off building more planes or regular divisions instead.

 

[Madzai]

If you are just planning to use these tanks in China isn't really able to effectively counter any tanks you bring to the field early in the war. The question is, however, if you wouldn't be better off building more planes or regular divisions instead.

So basically if one cannot afford proper offensive or armored Div you have to play from defense (as make them come for you) and invest in Fighters and CAS?

 

[Fulmen]

I don't use 40 width in SP because the AI doesn't do anything to counter it. If I build 40 width armor, I can just drive over the enemy and win with basically no resistance.

Yeah, that's true. Sometimes I try giving SP a shot because it's not a good hour for MP or I personally don't have the time to play a 5h+ MP game. But I always end up disappointed and quit around 1940.

Just the other night I ran a quick ironman game as non-aligned Finland, defended the border with 40 widths in the Winter War, and within months I had taken Leningrad, caused something like a million Russian casualties and pushed my territory to East Karelia and the Kola Peninsula, i.e. basically what amounts to the most common definition of Greater Finland. There was no challenge and thus no fun for me so at that point I quit. It always seems to be the same way with SP in HoI4. It's a shame because while SP is relatively easy in all PDX games, it's never been as easy as it is in HoI4.

And sure, you can stack modifiers and mods etc. to make it seem harder, but all they really do is make the AI more spammy, not smarter, while also completely ruining immersion. The end-result is ultimately the same, it just requires more busywork i.e. micro and grinding to reach the same result, but the AI will still be just as garbage.

EDIT: I guess you could also gimp yourself by not switching to better laws ASAP, by building interwar fighters, light tank 1s etc. and fielding historical templates (which are considerably worse in-game than the IRL fictional 14-4 or 7-2). But that's just another form of modifier-stacking and ultimately won't make the AI any smarter.

 

[Nimitz12345]

Yeah, that's true. Sometimes I try giving SP a shot because it's not a good hour for MP or I personally don't have the time to play a 5h+ MP game. But I always end up disappointed and quit around 1940.

Singleplayer is designed to teach you the basics and prepare you for multiplayer. Every (grand)RTS game has shit A.I and that will be the case for the next decades or so. PDX should instead focus on better MP game mechanics. A mechanic where you could play by an game controlled ruleset would be a good start.

 

[Fulmen]

Singleplayer is designed to teach you the basics and prepare you for multiplayer.

I mean that's how it goes if you want to move to the next level and actually become good at the game; you have to move on to MP. But HoI4 is not specifically designed for MP in any way.

The only MP feature they've given us are pings, and those usually break after a resync or hotjoin. Even getting a functioning MP game going requires multiple user workarounds because PDX still hasn't fixed things like the need to restart your game after each time you've entered the game world, because otherwise you'll go out of sync. We don't even have a fully functioning server list; you have to tick the "no password" box to see all games without a password, the lobby gets bugged at around 50 minutes and then no-one can join, requiring a rehost, and nowhere does it say whether a game is in progress or not, because the list says "Starting" for all games, including running ones with hotjoin on. MP in HoI4 is basically a half-assedly made afterthought.

MtG will bring some MP features like server rulesets, and balance fixes that wouldn't have happened without the competitive MP community, like research nerfs. But that's a long way off and given PDX's track record, they might not work entirely as intended either.

At the moment EU4 is the only PDX game to receive any real MP-based development, and that's because it's the only game they've MP tested to at least an acceptable degree of player competence and competitiveness in their matches.

 

[coffeelingfine]

Leave the competitiveness to MOBAs. >_>

Hoi is for roleplaying imo.

 

[EntropyAvatar]

Oh and as a general tip to most people in this thread, since 20 widths seem very popular with the singleplayer crowd: 40 widths are 2x better in combat.

This is basically true, but I am continually surprised that most people seem to be fine with this. I consider it a serious design flaw in the basic combat resolution. As far as I can tell, it doesn't represent anything real at all, yet it has huge influence on division design. Imagine if divisions with an even number of battalions were 3x as effective "just because": it is so arbitrary. It could be fixed with a reasonable effort but there doesn't seem to be any interest on the part of the players or the devs to address it.

 

[Sourlol]

Leave the competitiveness to MOBAs. >_>

Hoi is for roleplaying imo.

There is a difference between competitive play (ranked) in MOBAs and wanting your opponent to be competitive with you in a “role playing” game like HOI.

I don’t play league basketball anymore, but I won’t enjoy playing street hoops vs 13 year olds.

 

[Jamey]

At the moment EU4 is the only PDX game to receive any real MP-based development, and that's because it's the only game they've MP tested to at least an acceptable degree of player competence and competitiveness in their matches.

There has also been a few iterations of a multiplayer beta for Stellaris. I'm not sure what's in it, as I don't MP.

 

[Ai Shizuka]

As France, I put heavy armor to my infantry division to give them armor and breakthrough. Especially in early war where Germany won't have much hard attack stuff it feels very effective.

Seems reasonable. I'll start building dedicated offensive divisions when the manpower bonus from mass assault kicks in and Germany will show the first signs of manpower/equipment shortage.