Army composition in Core - what changed for you?

[seattle]

The other thing that confuses me besides techs is how to compose a corps or an army.

It seems that brigades now don't have any speed modifiers.
Even heavy tanks don't reduce speed, engineers don't increase it anymore.

1. 3 divs infantry

I used to attach engineers to all three to get a very fast infantry corps which is good for keeping pace with the armoured spearheads and great in securing the gaps.

As brigades don't change speed anymore, how would you compose an infantry corps?
I was thinking of:
- 1 art, 1 at, 1 eng (to be prepared for any situation)
- 3 art (for the punch, used as specialized offensive corps)

What about super-heavy tanks, light tanks (never used those), the two kinds of armoured cars, aa...?


2. 11 divs infantry + hq (or 12 divs infantry)

I think I still will use an mp-hq.
Maybe 4 art., 2 at., 1 super-heavy tank, 1 AA, 1 eng, 2 ac (1 of each kind)

Do you use the same brigades for each army?
I read that a couple of people use different kinds of corps (either defensive or offensive) which makes sense.
I cannot see a point in not using exactly the same brigades for armies though.

How do you compose your armies in Core?


3. 3 divs armoured (2 tanks, 1 mot for example)

Now to the most interesting and difficult choice.
I used to attach ht and sp-art to the tanks, engineer to the mot.
This way tank speed was reduced, mot increased and in the end every part of the corps had the same speed.

Now in Core there is no way to do that. Does the combination tanks and mots even make sense anymore? The tanks will suffer greatly from the single mot division in terms of speed (should be around - 2 compared to a pure tank corps).

First question: Do you use 3 tanks, 2 tank 1 mot, 1 tank 2 mot, 2 mech 1 mot...?
Second: What brigades do you attach?

My oil ressources obviously dictate my army composition.
As it seems that Germany will finally have trouble stockpiling enough oil, that should be a major factor. Do you still use heavy-tanks as Germany?

Currently I am completely overwhelmed especially with the armoured corps composition.
This should be an interesting discussion with many different ideas.

 

[The Wookiee]

I like Armored Car brigades. In fact, I like them so much, I compose my standard infantry corps this way:
Inf+Art (Replaced by SP Art or Rocket Art when available)
Inf+AC
Inf+Eng

Sometimes I find it good to bring some tanks along to play...
Inf+Art (Replaced by SP Art or Rocket Art when available)
Inf+L-A
Inf+Eng

I never ever use an army formation... I find them too big, not very flexible. I do have an Army unit however:
HQ+AA (This used to have the Engineer brigade, to boost speed...)
Inf+AT
Inf+Eng

As for armoured corps, I tend to use only armored units:
Arm+SP
Arm+SP AT
Arm+Eng

... up until Mec '41:
Arm+SP Art
Mec+L-A
Mec+Eng

 

[seattle]

You don't use mot at all?
An armoured corps consisting of tanks and mechs won't give you the combined arms bonus.

I am playing as Russia currently and can see no advantage of sp-art compared with regular artillery.
The sp-art even had slightly worse statistics, no speed bonus.

Is this a bug or does it only affect several countries?

_________________

The heavy tank brigade gives you a -2 speed penalty (unlike I stated above).
It is so far the only brigade which modifies speed though.

__________________

I mostly used (in vanilla) 10 x 11 inf.+ hq armies for sole convenience purposes.

 

[McNaughton]

Hi guys,

I was the one mostly responsible for the change of land units in CORE2. One of my goals was to eliminate the patterns used by people, such as always building a particular ultimate combination of attachments (like Mot+Eng and Arm+HArm for all your Armoured Corps).

However, I am unsure as to how well my new changes are balanced.

I would appreciate a review on each of the units in the game (attachments mainly), and state when they may be useful (i.e., what units/situations would they be used for), what makes them attractive/unattractive to use, and what may be improved.

Here's a list of attachments.

1. Artillery
2. SP-Artillery
3. Tank Destroyer
4. Anti-Tank
5. Anti-Aircraft
6. Soft Recon (cavalry)
7. Hard Recon (armoured cars)
8. Light Tanks (Gun)
9. Light Tanks (MG)
10. Infantry Tank (Infantry Tanks)
11. Infantry Tank (Assault Guns)
12. Heavy Tanks
13. Engineer (to be changed in a later version, so don't be concerned if this one is presently pretty useless)
14. Military Police

Please let me know:

Why you build it?

Why you don't build it?

What would it take to get to build it?

What combinations of attachments work?

Do things change over time in the game? (i.e., an attachment useful in 1940, but not so in 1944)

This way I can look over the units, and see if something is over powered, under powered, balanced correctly, costs too much, too little, etc. so we can get most attachments useful for almost any nation the entire game.

Thanks for your time!

 

[McNaughton]

You don't use mot at all?
An armoured corps consisting of tanks and mechs won't give you the combined arms bonus.

I am playing as Russia currently and can see no advantage of sp-art compared with regular artillery.
The sp-art even had slightly worse statistics, no speed bonus.

Is this a bug or does it only affect several countries?

Well, if you want to give a SA bonus to your motorized, mechanized, armoured troops, you have to give them SP-Art, as Art cannot be attached to them.

I would also strongly advize to use Motorized troops with your Armoured divisions, primarily because you need something to defend with (Armoured have low defense), and something to combat all of those soft units you may encounter (as Armour have low SA values), plus, you get a neat combined arms bonus.

 

[Spruce]

Well, if you want to give a SA bonus to your motorized, mechanized, armoured troops, you have to give them SP-Art, as Art cannot be attached to them.

I would also strongly advize to use Motorized troops with your Armoured divisions, primarily because you need something to defend with (Armoured have low defense), and something to combat all of those soft units you may encounter (as Armour have low SA values), plus, you get a neat combined arms bonus.

I don't agree with that. ART gives an "off-field" supporting fire bonus. They should just lower the speed of the Motorised division while moving on the map. What's the role of SP-ART then ? Well that doesn't give you an "off-field" supporting fire bonus - but instead a brigade of SP-ART guns that are on the battlefield and actually doing besides SA also HA damage !

So to summarise = ART should also be attachable to MOT (like Vanilla) and SP-ART should have HA damage and other stats.

 

[The Wookiee]

You don't use mot at all?

Yes I do. In Motorized Corps:
Mot+Random
Mot+Random
Mot+Eng

An armoured corps consisting of tanks and mechs won't give you the combined arms bonus.

I can live without it frankly...

 

[McNaughton]

I don't agree with that. ART gives an "off-field" supporting fire bonus. They should just lower the speed of the Motorised division while moving on the map. What's the role of SP-ART then ? Well that doesn't give you an "off-field" supporting fire bonus - but instead a brigade of SP-ART guns that are on the battlefield and actually doing besides SA also HA damage !

So to summarise = ART should also be attachable to MOT (like Vanilla) and SP-ART should have HA damage and other stats.

No. It is not possible to lower the speed of Motorized without lowering Infantry. That is why there are two models.

Also, you are mixing up SP-Artillery and Assault Guns. SP-Artillery was used in exactly the same role as Artillery, except that they could keep up with the tanks and motorized infantry, and can get into firing position faster, and had limited armoured protection. Their field guns weren't somehow better at destroying tanks than Artillery, as they used exactly the same guns! They never put these vehicles in action against tanks, as, their armour was too thin.

Assault guns, like the StuG, Semovente, Zinryi, etc., were all designed to be close infantry support, going up and using their guns in direct fire. These are found in the 'infantry tank' section.

Self-Propelled Guns, like the Priest, Wespe, Sexton, etc., were designed to move with the tanks, and fire from the rear. Their design goal was to keep up with the tanks, able to get into action quickly, and have limited armoured defense, but, were NOT designed for the direct fire role, or the Anti-Tank role.

 

[Szun]

well..my thoughts about attachments

L-A model is highest '41, or at least i couldnt see any other, semi usefull as cheap "softness" reducer but overall pointless.

AC - well for once, cant be used on MOT units wich i would normaly put them. (and germany starts with MOT with AC ...go figure )

AC-L-A ...sorry but are those usefull at all? i didnt see anything past '35 tech, hardly 1st or even 2nd choise brigade


My usual "Panzerarmee" setup is :
1st Korps
Arm + Hvy Arm
Mot + AA
Mot + SP-Art

2nd Korps
Arm + Sp-Art
Mot + AT
Mot + Sp-Art

3rd Korps
Arm + Sp-art
Mot + AA
Mot + Sp-Art

In my last game i used some L-A attachments but i wasnt to fond of them.
Unless Eng do have some hidden qualities i am not aware of, bonuses to rivercrossing etc, they are not my first choise.
I do love the "88-AA" aka '38 -AA. the defense is nice, both the air defense and normal.
The hvys have -2 speed, at least the early do, i didnt come around to '42 yet to see the "very hvy"

A short note on the lack of softattack on tankdivisons.
Historical, those formations used to have 1 tank reg. 2 mot regs (aprox) or later ones even 1 mech reg.
In gameterms, as it stands now in CORE, you simulate a 100% tank divison with no MGs or HE ammo.
In ealier dvisions, up to '38, that might be somwhat true..37mm guns and 50mm guns dont really have much HE dmg.
But thats why the wehrmacht put the Pz IV in service.
Even if i cant follow your reasoning, in game it makes some sense if acurate or not.
I did see a increase in softattack with higher (41-42) divisons so its not as bad. '41 with 18HA 8 SA +Sp Art (38) ends up with 18 /12 wich is ok. (dont quote me on numbers pls i did it out of the head and might not be 100%)

P.S. I would use AC on all MOT korps if i could, in combo with sp-art AT or AA
But i hardly ever build enough MOT to cover the "panzerkorps"
I never put AC on infantry though, nor did i bother to research infantry tanks at all, since it ends (afaik) with stug IV and i normaly dont have enough fluel to go around for my tank formations

 

[unmerged(17767)]

I usually use the SP-ART attached to my Panzer divisions and TD attached to a motorized division configured in a 2 Pz/1 Mot corps. I like to attach artillery and AT guns to some of my infantry divisions for firepower at the breakthrough point of the line.

 

[McNaughton]

A short note on the lack of softattack on tankdivisons.
Historical, those formations used to have 1 tank reg. 2 mot regs (aprox) or later ones even 1 mech reg.
In gameterms, as it stands now in CORE, you simulate a 100% tank divison with no MGs or HE ammo.
In ealier dvisions, up to '38, that might be somwhat true..37mm guns and 50mm guns dont really have much HE dmg.
But thats why the wehrmacht put the Pz IV in service.
Even if i cant follow your reasoning, in game it makes some sense if acurate or not.
I did see a increase in softattack with higher (41-42) divisons so its not as bad. '41 with 18HA 8 SA +Sp Art (38) ends up with 18 /12 wich is ok. (dont quote me on numbers pls i did it out of the head and might not be 100%)

Actually, the reverse was true about composition of armoured divisions. Most had...

2 Armoured Regiments/Brigades + 1 Support Group (usually a weak brigade, light in artillery and only about 2 battalions of Infantry). By 1941, most nations eliminated the 2nd Armoured Regiment, and added more support troops (Infantry, Artillery, Recon), to make them much more balanced units.

Tanks were not very effective against infantry equipped to fight them. There are many examples in Poland and France where German Panzer Divisions were savaged by all infantry forces who managed to be well equipped with Anti-Tank. Tanks didn't kill infantry on their own, they were good for destroying strongpoints, covering infantry, and EXPLOITING breakthroughs (not making them). Eventually, the divisions became more balanced, therefore more effective.

It may be true that Armoured Divisions are not exactly effective fighting Infantry early in the game, but, check out the strength of the Infantry forces in regards to Hard Attack! Things have been 'balanced out', that early Armour is actually more effective vs infantry than early infantry is against armour.

What you need to do is assign attachments.

Assign Recon attadchments to your early Armoured Divisions (the only way to increase their softness early on, or use SP artillery). Attach Anti-Tank attachments to your infantry forces to get them the weapons they need to defeat the tanks.

 

[McNaughton]

I am planning to reballance the attachments in a later CORE release.

#1. Armoured Cars and Recon. I am going to add bonus' to Armoured Cars reflecting their increased ability to ficht on the front lines. I plan for AC to = Cavalry Recon in strength, except that AC get softness bonus', and probably more HA, as well as costing a lot more IC and fuel.

#2. Engineer. They do recieve 'hidden' benefits (I am 99% sure) regarding river attacks and such, but am planning to add increases in toughness and defensiveness, plus make a sub-class called 'Logistics Engineers' who reduce supply usage.

#3. Light Armour. Designed primarily as 'the tank for the minors' won't be quite as useful for major nations as they would be for minor nations. Minor nations cannot research heavy tanks, or TDs, or very far in the AC tree, the only way to get softness reductions for their forces (motorized, mechanized, and armoured) is to assign Light Armour. I don't mind that major nations are finding this unit useless, but how do they fare for minor nations?

 

[Gezeder]

So far in one game, the only attachment I built was Soft Recon, (Cavalry) as Russia because of it's excellent Toughness boost to low supply ratio, as I was uncertain of my future TC requirements.

However then when I was upgrading the infantry, the Cavalry attachments upgraded to the fuel hogging armoured cars, and I couldn't be bothered micromanaging all those brigades while upgrading, so I probably won't bother again!

Gezeder

 

[McNaughton]

So far in one game, the only attachment I built was Soft Recon, (Cavalry) as Russia because of it's excellent Toughness boost to low supply ratio, as I was uncertain of my future TC requirements.

However then when I was upgrading the infantry, the Cavalry attachments upgraded to the fuel hogging armoured cars, and I couldn't be bothered micromanaging all those brigades while upgrading, so I probably won't bother again!

Gezeder

Actually, you researched Motorized Infantry techs, which gave you Motorcycle Battalions (an upgrade from Cavalry). They use less fuel than the Armoured Car, but, more than Cavalry.

In a later verison, I have decided to give the player a choice as to the level of motorization of the recon, so they can still use the supply-only Cavalry (so they won't have to use Motorcycle Infantry Battalions, but still get access to the Motorized Infantry Division).

QUESTION - Can you tell me what exactly these battalions are called (i.e., are they called "BA-20", or "Motorizovannaya '38")? I just want to double check that the game is upgrading units only to certain levels, and not to the most modern model.

 

[unmerged(46637)]

I don't use tanks with motorized infantry any more. Bringing 8 speed units down to 5 is too much for me to fathom. However I still use motorized in their own seperate corps to follow up the tanks and hold territory. Some of my infantry corps use AA, AT, and Art.

 

[McNaughton]

I don't use tanks with motorized infantry any more. Bringing 8 speed units down to 5 is too much for me to fathom. However I still use motorized in their own seperate corps to follow up the tanks and hold territory. Some of my infantry corps use AA, AT, and Art.

Well, Motorized troops get up to speed 8 in 1941 (I am revamping semi-motorized, probably going to remove it as a class and make them all motorized for a future release, maybe the bugfix).

 

[McBaresark]

QUESTION - Can you tell me what exactly these battalions are called (i.e., are they called "BA-20", or "Motorizovannaya '38")? I just want to double check that the game is upgrading units only to certain levels, and not to the most modern model.

Just wanted to chime in here - just played as Italy and in '43 my "Autotransportible '41" INF (which are 6bn units as per the Italian setup) started to "upgrade" to "'30 Infantry (9bn)" (or similar, can't remember the exact spelling sorry). This shouldn't happen obviously - the '30 Infantry (9bn) is far inferior statwise, and I shouldn't be able to produce 9bn units anyway.

Broken model upgrade setup? Most inopportune time too - had just taken Belfast in an amphibious invasion and was about to hop over to England when my forces were suddenly upgraded into ineffectiveness

Good fun with the mod so far

Regards,

McBaresark

 

[McNaughton]

It shouldn't happen either, because 1930 Model Infantry was slept. Very odd, never seen this sort of thing happen before.

 

[McNaughton]

Just wanted to chime in here - just played as Italy and in '43 my "Autotransportible '41" INF (which are 6bn units as per the Italian setup) started to "upgrade" to "'30 Infantry (9bn)" (or similar, can't remember the exact spelling sorry). This shouldn't happen obviously - the '30 Infantry (9bn) is far inferior statwise, and I shouldn't be able to produce 9bn units anyway.

Broken model upgrade setup? Most inopportune time too - had just taken Belfast in an amphibious invasion and was about to hop over to England when my forces were suddenly upgraded into ineffectiveness

Good fun with the mod so far

Regards,

McBaresark

Can you actually build 1930 Infantry (9 Bn) in 1943 in the production section? Can you post the savegame so someone can look at it? Thanks for your report!

 

[Archangel85]

It shouldn't happen either, because 1930 Model Infantry was slept. Very odd, never seen this sort of thing happen before.

Japan gets the same.