Being Poland - A Worked Example

[unmerged(71032)]

I'm going to quote you, here:



That's from your analysis of the Fatherland Polish Campaign. Will this same strategy work in HoI3? I've tried it in HoI2 and it worked for a good while (perhaps indefinitely, I really don't remember).

It worked perfectly for me in HoI3 (patch 1.3) in 1939 scenario (so no pre-war build-up).

Everyone fall back to Warsaw (I had to rush the withdrawal, it was easier to avoid encirclements vs. AI compared to real September Campaign), then just defend there. I also said no to event that suggested to form GiE, so Soviet AI was unable to deal with that - I stayed in Warsaw till spring 1940, then got bored and quit.

Wouldn't make any sense in real life, of course, famine, diseases and civilian casulaties would force any commander to surrender - it's very gamey.

 

[Kanitatlan]

The HOI3 Wiki states this about the officer ratio.

....​

I've been enjoying this so far, and hope for you to continue with the good work.

I know what the qualitative effects of officer ratio are, what I was looking for is the definitive numbers (I guess I'll have to check myself)

Good update. I never really payed attention to this sort of thing before, o but now you've got me interested.

If you want to get anywhere as Poland you need to look at this stuff

The extensive and comprehensive (not excessive ) analysis in your AARs is their charm, in my opinion.

Charm eh

I've noticed you say a couple times that enemy armored divisions would have such and such softness. Is this softness the combined softness of the component brigades of the division, and if so then what are you assuming the basic enemy armored division to be structured like--one armored and two motorized brigades, or along those lines? What if you hit against an armored division that's all armored brigades? Is this likely, or possible?

Its the combined softness of the brigades as seen in the production screen. At this date Germany will be fielding 2 Lt Arm + 1 Mot which is circa 50% softness along with much higher softness motorised divisions.

No apologies necessary. It's one reason why I am reading it.
One difference between board games (that I grew up with) and computer games are the reams of information you can get with counter or figure based games that give you an idea of what is behind the combat/movement/etc effects. This type of thread helps to provide that background, and also challenges one to delve deeper to seek more. And as an AAR it promises to give even more context.
Thank you and keep up the good work.

I don't belive its fair to compare, say, a militia army at 200% officers to a infantry army at 100%. Though i have no calculated figures, from my experience, fielding all of your army as infantry and having up to date techs still leaves you with plenty of room to have 200% officers. The pure advantage of having more frontage might make them worth while, but i really doubt the extra ORG does.

This is a fair point as going militia doesn't give options for even higher officer levels BUT it does free up a lot of leadership and IC for other units which does make it interesting.

This is awesome!

I can't wait to see you fight Germany.

On a side note I notice you are from Derby. Once in an episode of Ramsay's Kitchen nightmares he went to a restaurant in Derby called "La Gondola" and during the episode he kept referencing the fact that he was in Derby, is Derby like a bad area or something?

Anyway I really like how you are so thorough and provide so much information.

Nothing much wrong with Derby but then there isn't a great deal to be said for it either.

It worked perfectly for me in HoI3 (patch 1.3) in 1939 scenario (so no pre-war build-up).

Everyone fall back to Warsaw (I had to rush the withdrawal, it was easier to avoid encirclements vs. AI compared to real September Campaign), then just defend there. I also said no to event that suggested to form GiE, so Soviet AI was unable to deal with that - I stayed in Warsaw till spring 1940, then got bored and quit.

Wouldn't make any sense in real life, of course, famine, diseases and civilian casulaties would force any commander to surrender - it's very gamey.

Unfortunately just surviving isn't going to be enough and I'm really not sure how well a full withdrawal will work - perhaps we'll try it.

 

[Kanitatlan]

GETTING STARTED​

Whatever the plan there are a number of steps that are universal to all the approaches I have considered and rather than embed them into the main narrative I'm going to cover certain elements separately for the first few years. This is because the decisions and their consequences are remarkably consistent and since I am likely to run several plans through before providing a main narrative this provides good general background.

The first issue is the effect of those pesky regular HQ brigades as they lead to additional consumer goods needs. At this point they are costing me 3.1% of 61 IC which is 1.89 IC per day or 2550 IC days over the whole run up. It is impractical to recover all this IC or even a majority but by sending my spies to reduce our neutrality I can improve it. More of that in a bit.

After the first day things have settled down a bit and it is time for a whole series of further actions. The first is to start the time sensitive "production improvement" technologies. This set of 5 techs improves production of key inputs in various ways and hence there is a real benefit from starting them as soon as possible. This reduces the rate of spy build up to approximately 1 every 9 days but getting these techs done and a few extra days of their benefits is problem a better small delta than the small delta from building up spies quicker. All in all this is of very limited impact either way.

Once my espionage defence builds up to 10 spies I will direct all effort to technology research. Which technologies depends on the plan being tested so I won't list them off here.

The second day is also when we set up our two key trades. These are specifically selected to provide income from surplus energy and sufficient rares to operate our industry. The target countries are chosen on the basis of most likely to accept the offer. They were the only two that came up "very likely" and hindsight shows they were a good selection. These two trades balance the books and strictly speaking I don't need anything else.

On further trading I have a definite policy that I will not sell supplies as they are IC output but I am willing to sell surplus of anything else. I'm quite happy to oversell energy as I can always cancel the trade if reserves drop too much but metals and rares need to be conserved. I am happy to sell oil and fuel if anyone wants them as my armed forces just aren't going to use any so there is no need for a significant reserve to be built up.

I won't record all the trade offers in the main body of the AAR as that is all rather tedious, suffice to say that I will be asked for resources and I will collect extra money from selling them

Initially internal espionage resources are directed to concentrate on eliminating enemy spies. At the start there are plenty of them about so we focus on getting rid of them.

After 3 months spying activity appears to have cleared down so the spies are redirected to lowering neutrality (at a fantastic 0.03 per day). This comes out to about 10 per year so you will appreciate it will take a long time to come down. I'm guessing that by mid 1938 I will have reduced it enough to save me something like 2 IC per day on the consumer goods (HQ load generated by that date). I think a realistic estimate is that reducing neutrality will save about 2,000 IC days over the build up period.

Even with my spies redirected to lower neutrality they still do a fairly good job of eliminating enemy spies. This raises the interesting question of whether counterespionage was ever the right mission to have assigned but I can't really tell since the underlying enemy activity is broadly unknown.

 

[Kanitatlan]

PLAN 1A - PURE INFANTRY​

Rather than go through the plan as a full AAR I'm just going to provide a description of the results. Note that production is already affected by accumulated pre-game practicals.

3rd Jan 19 x Inf Brigade (reserves) @ 2.27 for 142 days
25th May 23 x Inf Brigade (reserves) @1.82 for 118 days
21st Sep 6 x Inf Division (reserves) @ 6.58 for 108 days
7th Jan 7 x Inf Division (reserves) @ 6.27 for 104 days
21st April 31 x Inf Brigade (reserves) @ 1.52 for 101 days
1st Aug 22 x Inf Brigade (reserves) @ 1.45 for 98 days

This production profile has manpower shortage at this point and completes infantry production 7th November 1937. It can easily be followed by upgrades and reinforcement of all units leading to a complete army late January 1938 albeit still a reserve army. At its current strength at this point it needs to reserve all remaining manpower income for bringing the army up to strength when we mobilise.

Research had been limited to within date techs consisting of the default set (see earlier post), infantry 36 techs, infantry org doctrine and 2 steps of orders delay doctrine. Remaining leadership had gone into officers and had the current level up to 101%. Further techs are now in progress for the 1938 research cycle but they are yet to complete.

At this point I'm inclined to say that I don't like this plan and don't intend to play through to the combat stage. It creates a perfectly viable army but leaves a great deal of spare IC for which there is no manpower and a lot of waiting around. This really means that the strategy needs to have some brigades that are a lot more manpower efficient which pretty much means adding some artillery. This adds 8 artillery techs and, if I want, 2 doctrine steps for artillery org.

So let's try plan 1B with a target of a mixed infantry / artillery army

I could consider a plan 1C with a target of infantry plus interceptors. This might be quite an interesting combination with its possibilities for disputing air superiority but I think I will save it for later.

 

[Kanitatlan]

MANPOWER​

It is apparent that manpower is going to be the key limiting factor and by careful calculation and disbanding all starting units I can verify that total manpower for 1st September 1939 is going to be near as damn it 850.

Since manpower is going to a be a limiting factor I did some calculations of how much extra manpower can be gained by tech rushing agriculture and the answer came out at about 10 extra total. This beautifully illustrates the absolute hopelessness of that approach.

In truth the only rescue for manpower is to play on an easier difficulty or go to war with someone. Neither option is going to happen so we have to work around that total of 850.

For those who are interested the arithmetic goes as follows

Look up total manpower on map (see tooltip on manpower but ignore monthly number)

Multiply by 0.2
Add tech modifier %age to this figure
Add draft modifier %age to this figure

This gives annual manpower income

Note that multipliers are multiplied with each other​

On the second day we have 3 year draft so total annual rate is 155 * 1.3 * 1.25 pro rata across each day.

 

[Lordban]

I'll admit I would have gone for 1C. AI Poland has actually surprised me by fielding 6 INT and 5 TAC wings in one GER game. This was not something I liked much, as it meant stripping Western Germany of quite a bit of fighter cover long enough to clear the skies.

Also, air power actually bites. It requires quite a bit of time to work its effects, but I've seen quite a few attacks with unfavourable odds or in unfavourable terrain succeed just because they were properly supported. Besides, not contesting enemy air superiority takes its toll on the manpower. 3 TACs can and often do kill 500 soldiers in a single day. Here, too, the problem it creates is a sensible drain over time.

 

[Baltasar]

Uriah did write down quite a lot about losses to air attacks. http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?t=439687

 

[unmerged(35723)]

Wow! Kani's HOI3 AAR! Really looking forward, because my way of playing HOI games is very very similar to yours, i.e. heavy reasoning on everything I do. Subscribed.

I know you are a master in Paradox titles already. Just a few small suggestions you may have overlooked.

Policy: I tend to use Consumer Product Oriention instead of Mixed Industry. As Poland in 1936, you end up having 10+ extra free IC. You production will be about 10% more expensive in terms of ICD. But overall you are still better off.

Spying: Hostile espinage actually speeds up your research. So, don't bother kill 'em.

Research: a) I may not research Education. It takes 281 LD to get 5% bonus which is 0.356 every day after 11/10/36. It takes 789 days to payback the investment. That is 1070 days in total, meaning breakeven date in December 1938, obviously too late for a German invasion in May 1939. Level 1 Land Combat Exp practical reduces you doctrine research very marginally (you may check 1936 oil refinery tech). So I tend to ignore Education.

Research: b) I will only research militia SA and Def, so only two techs every time. This may make MIL/GAR slightly more attractive.

Militia/Garrison: Based on BWA, I prefer GAR for its higher SA and ORG. GAR's is almost 3 times of MIL's at 36 tech and more than twice at 40 tech. Your practical will also favour weaponery research which adds more SA on GAR, over doctrine research.

Cannon fodder: Based on your BWA theory and the mechanism in HOI3, cannon fodder should be single brigade division rather than full strengh 4 brigade MIL division. Actually, understrength HQs are perfect candidates for the purpose, although may not be ICD-efficient. My test "Tide has turned" game shows adding 9 new HQs (150 strength 100% org) in Stalingrad, Paulus can be kept alive for at least 2-3 months until supply runs out and org can no longer be regained.

Thank you for the great AAR! Looking forward to seeing your success in the AAR!

 

[unmerged(52507)]

How many brigades of infantry did Plan 1A produce? What was the total size of the army going that route? With builds above plus starting units.

 

[sprites]

that's interesting , maybe i'll try HOI again

 

[gunboat]

a word of thanks

Thanks for taking the time and doing this Kat, big help to those of us not really into HOI3 yet. Request: do a major nation AAR next, with air and naval stuff involved.

 

[Kanitatlan]

I'll admit I would have gone for 1C. AI Poland has actually surprised me by fielding 6 INT and 5 TAC wings in one GER game. This was not something I liked much, as it meant stripping Western Germany of quite a bit of fighter cover long enough to clear the skies.

Also, air power actually bites. It requires quite a bit of time to work its effects, but I've seen quite a few attacks with unfavourable odds or in unfavourable terrain succeed just because they were properly supported. Besides, not contesting enemy air superiority takes its toll on the manpower. 3 TACs can and often do kill 500 soldiers in a single day. Here, too, the problem it creates is a sensible drain over time.

I will definitely be getting around to the air options at some point as my experience of German air power is a little too realistic for my liking. Forthcoming detours into actual comabt examples will perhaps illustrate this nicely and support you views.

Uriah did write down quite a lot about losses to air attacks. http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?t=439687

I expect to be saying a fair amount about air attacks. I have the casualty popups on so I can track everything.

Wow! Kani's HOI3 AAR! Really looking forward, because my way of playing HOI games is very very similar to yours, i.e. heavy reasoning on everything I do. Subscribed.

I know you are a master in Paradox titles already. Just a few small suggestions you may have overlooked.

Policy: I tend to use Consumer Product Oriention instead of Mixed Industry. As Poland in 1936, you end up having 10+ extra free IC. You production will be about 10% more expensive in terms of ICD. But overall you are still better off.

This appears to be correct and is a change from when I was playing some months ago.

Spying: Hostile espinage actually speeds up your research. So, don't bother kill 'em.

Despite this I feel obliged to play as if the game worked properly. However, I have changed my intelligence plan in the light of observed behaviour.

Research: a) I may not research Education. It takes 281 LD to get 5% bonus which is 0.356 every day after 11/10/36. It takes 789 days to payback the investment. That is 1070 days in total, meaning breakeven date in December 1938, obviously too late for a German invasion in May 1939. Level 1 Land Combat Exp practical reduces you doctrine research very marginally (you may check 1936 oil refinery tech). So I tend to ignore Education.

Since I require lots of officers the date for war selected guarantees there is a pay back on 1936 education so it remains in the plan (1938 education is of course out)

Research: b) I will only research militia SA and Def, so only two techs every time. This may make MIL/GAR slightly more attractive.

This is of course an obvious step to take so thie correct appraisal of Mil/Gar requires only half the tech. Similar issue could be applied to infantry and artillery as hard attack remains remarkably useless for all units.

Militia/Garrison: Based on BWA, I prefer GAR for its higher SA and ORG. GAR's is almost 3 times of MIL's at 36 tech and more than twice at 40 tech. Your practical will also favour weaponery research which adds more SA on GAR, over doctrine research.

I'm afraid that the low movement speed of garrison units leaves me rather terrified of using them.

Cannon fodder: Based on your BWA theory and the mechanism in HOI3, cannon fodder should be single brigade division rather than full strengh 4 brigade MIL division. Actually, understrength HQs are perfect candidates for the purpose, although may not be ICD-efficient. My test "Tide has turned" game shows adding 9 new HQs (150 strength 100% org) in Stalingrad, Paulus can be kept alive for at least 2-3 months until supply runs out and org can no longer be regained.

Thank you for the great AAR! Looking forward to seeing your success in the AAR!

I'm not sure on your cannon fodder ideas. I need to investigate exactly how combat is working these days to clarify the issue but I believe that loss and regain of org shouldn't be affected by divisional structure.

How many brigades of infantry did Plan 1A produce? What was the total size of the army going that route? With builds above plus starting units.

250 brigades but it runs out of manpower after mobilisation.

that's interesting , maybe i'll try HOI again

It is worth a try as althoug flawed it remains a fun game to play if a little dauting at times (I live in terror of trying to reorganise the Soviet army into a semblance of sensible organisation for a leadership strapped nation)

Thanks for taking the time and doing this Kat, big help to those of us not really into HOI3 yet. Request: do a major nation AAR next, with air and naval stuff involved.

If I get a chance I plan a Germany alone game with exotic but fun plans.

 

[Kanitatlan]

PLAN 1B - INFANTRY AND ARTILLERY​

This plan economises on manpower by building lots of artillery therefore preserving and increasing firepower for the maximum ground unit build.

174 Infantry Brigades (3.33 mp)
174 Artillery Brigades (1.33 mp)​

In divisions of 2 Inf + 2 Art. This costs 9.33 manpower per division and leaves me with about 40 manpower for HQs (which cost 1.67 manpower each) and reinforcements for peacetime manpower losses. This build actually uses less manpower (by 10) than the 250 infantry brigade built in plan 1A so it is looking quite attractive if we can afford the IC as it leads to 348 brigades in low frontage high firepower divisions. The only weakness is that the divisions do not have particularly good defensiveness, toughness or "strength". With appropriate techs this will be quite a significantly more powerful force than the infantry build if the scale of artillery production is possible. The officer ratio was at 110% at the start of hostilities which is a lot lower than the infantry build be we have a lot more brigades and significantly more tech to research.

Carrying out plan 1B leads to the above force being fully reinforced and upgraded (including mobilisation) just in time for a war start of 1st of September. Interestingly this represents a larger army than the entire French and British contributions combined (kind of depressing isn't it).

Achieving this plan does require all the economies that can be managed so it is a tight squeeze but seems to work fine if all you want is a powerful ground force. Given that this seems to be the basis of the optimum ground forces plan it is worth looking at in more detail towards the possibility of discussing further optimisation.

Game sequence

1. Start the 5 "industrial techs" - agriculture, education, production, efficiency, supply
2. Reorganise existing ground forces
   • Destroy all existing HQs and replace with new ones providing a full hierarchy
   • Use minimum number of HQs
   • Install logistics leaders for all corps, army, army group, theatre
   • Dissolve navy
   • Move all troops to immediate environs of Warsaw to eliminate supply chain losses
3. Change government ministers (man of the people)
4. Switch to consumer focused economy - reduced consumer goods more than compensate for increased production costs
5. Prioritise home spies and prevent new spies overseas
6. Put home spies on reducing neutrality
7. All excess leadership to espionage until 10 home spies
8. Execute one day with production on supply
9. Initiate energy trade with China and rares trade with France
10. Switch to 3 year draft
11. Upgrade and reinforcement spend zero
12. Initiate builds leading to slight supply decline

That covers the start up period and is generic to all the plans the follow up over time falls into a number of categories and flags several parallel plans

1. Submit all techs required as soon as they are within normal time with priority towards techs that lead to production improvements and unit upgrades.
   • Agriculture in 1936 & 1938
   • Education in 1936, 1938 step skipped as there is insufficient time to show a "profit"
   • Infantry techs in 1936 & 1938
   • Artillery techs (if appropriate) as and when (1932, 1934, 1936, 1938)
   • Operational Level organisation x2 - orders delay is a critical combat effect and must always be addressed
   • Infantry Warfare (inf org) and Assault Concentration (art org) 1936 & 1938
2. Execute unit production as rapidly as possible
   • Submit waves of units based on total build target with a slight bias towards unit types having lower production. Gearing from unit practicals will favour mass produced units so you can start biased against them.
   • Keep reducing consumer goods as and when neutrality falls
   • Increase consumer goods as and when new HQs must be added.
   • After builds run upgrades and then reinforcements. When surplus production is available mobilise and reinforce to full strength.*
   • HQs should be blocked from further reinforcement once they reach 800+ strength to conserve manpower. Fully reinforced HQs don't function any better so you don't need them
3. Intelligence operations are non-existent.
   • Build up 10 home spies and then stop building up.
   • Keep them on reducing neutrality and the extra IC in consumer goods will end in mid-1938.
   • Enemy spies will die along the way so no dedication to counterespionage is required.
   • After mid-1938 spies can be shifted to increasing national unity but it is not clear how important this is likely to be when actual operations commence.
4. In all "events" choose the option which has least impact on production and don't worry about national units, money penalties, party organisation or support. Dissent penalties will cost IC so they should be avoided if possible.

* Mobilisation starts a short period of enhanced reinforcement allowing units to reach full strength in 8 days if already reinforced to full peacetime strength. It also results in significant supply need increases and hence units should be left under strength as long as possible

This now raises the issue of how this plan can be improved

1) Early upgrades

I don't know exactly how the upgrade process works in HOI3 (advice would be useful here) but there are arguments for and against early upgrading of units. We could spend IC on upgrading units as soon as the upgrade becomes available​

• This delays builds and hence makes built units likely to be later models and hence reduces the number of upgrades required. Many more units will be built in 1939 when the final model is available
• Early upgrades will be affected by the lower practicals levels applicable at that time. Maximising the current practicals at upgrade implies completing all builds first
• The benefit from late upgrading in a batch are unknown

2) Delayed Tech

I experimented with delaying the artillery techs until artillery practicals significantly reduced their cost. Overall this may have saved around 500 officers so looks to be of dubious value as it costs IC due to built units requiring more upgrades. I intend to drop this idea unless someone can put together a cogent argument for why it should be used.​

3) Extra Tech

There is a strong argument for pushing ahead with an extra step of soft firepower tech for all units as the actual cost in reduced officer counts is easily affordable. This looks likely to cost circa 2,500 officers for each tech and also imposes additional upgrade requirements. This is a very attractive step but there are some questions about affordability and whether some other techs (and their upgrades) can be dropped to compensate. The real attraction of dropping techs is the reduction of upgrades as we address both issues.​

 

[Lordban]

Ah, upgrades. If upgrading units by two or more tech levels at a time has benefits, it certainly isn't in terms of time required for upgrades. My first HoI3 game taught me to schedule upgrades sooner than I used to in HoI2.

 

[unmerged(35723)]

I have been in the minority of 2+2 formation supporters for quite a while. Most of the forumites seem to prefer triagle 3+1 divisions. I am still using 2+2 as the backbone of my attacking forces. However, a major overhaul of combat mechanism is making me reluctant to put such division in defence, especially hard long attrition battle now in 1.4.

In 1.4, apparently support brigades are no longer protected by combat brigades from direct enemy fire. This makes them losing org and str far quicker than in earlier versions. The result is a division may retreat while overall org and str are still in good shape but one support brigade is already exhausted. Airstrike often makes the situation worse because it seems to hit support brigades harder than combat ones.

As a result, I now feel safer to field a defensive corps in the form or 2GAR*4 plus Inf+3Art plus (sometimes) HQ+3Art/AA. 2GAR divisions will turn into 4GAR divisions if likely to be attacked. Arts will rush in whenever needed. As I said I am still using 2+2 in offensives because largely I can control the battles and avoid attrition.

 

[Enewald]

Looks quite interesting, have to see how this shall turn out.

 

[unmerged(32135)]

Dammit, I already had enough on my plate before I started to read this. Now I'm sunk. I'll never get everything done for the next year or so before this AAR wraps up with a Polish WC. Dammit.

First off, I apologize if you've already spent time answering any of this. I had to skim it the first time. I think I mentioned I have time management issues. I promise to read it all the way through as soon as I can. I can't stop myself from typing a post anyway. So - I think I gathered that you suggest a static defense involving lost territory is admitting defeat. I think that's true only if the Allies never ever intervene. So I guess I can't get the idea of a Polish Maginot with GAR and ENG out of my heard.

I noted in the update log for 1.4 that ENGs have been upgraded on the defense:

* Land
- Engineers are now much better at defending in all rough terrain.
- Engineers now gives nice bonuses to defending.

That leads me to suspect that ENG are now a viable option.

So many thoughts. I have to stop here. Thanks for the new distraction, dammit.

-- Beppo

 

[dog player]

His last post was 13 days ago..
What happened dude,the Germans beat you up so bad ?:rofl:

 

[peterhoi3]

You are obviously an expert, I will be following this with interest. Given your decision of not building an air force, aren´t you going to add some anti aircraft brigades to the divisions? Without air force and anti aircraft the German planes will bomber you to pieces.

 

[Kanitatlan]

Sorry for the delay in updating but I've been very busy and work and been carrying out some experiments including a quick German run up to explore what Poland is fighting against. (All I can say is thank god the AI isn't as clever as I am )

Ah, upgrades. If upgrading units by two or more tech levels at a time has benefits, it certainly isn't in terms of time required for upgrades. My first HoI3 game taught me to schedule upgrades sooner than I used to in HoI2.

Investigation shows that multi-step upgrades do not change upgrade time but cost seems to be divisded by the number of steps outstanding - ie if you are 3 steps behind then cost is 1/3 then 1/2 then a full cost upgrade. I will be repeating this in the main posts for those that miss it here.

I have been in the minority of 2+2 formation supporters for quite a while. Most of the forumites seem to prefer triagle 3+1 divisions. I am still using 2+2 as the backbone of my attacking forces. However, a major overhaul of combat mechanism is making me reluctant to put such division in defence, especially hard long attrition battle now in 1.4.

In 1.4, apparently support brigades are no longer protected by combat brigades from direct enemy fire. This makes them losing org and str far quicker than in earlier versions. The result is a division may retreat while overall org and str are still in good shape but one support brigade is already exhausted. Airstrike often makes the situation worse because it seems to hit support brigades harder than combat ones.

As a result, I now feel safer to field a defensive corps in the form or 2GAR*4 plus Inf+3Art plus (sometimes) HQ+3Art/AA. 2GAR divisions will turn into 4GAR divisions if likely to be attacked. Arts will rush in whenever needed. As I said I am still using 2+2 in offensives because largely I can control the battles and avoid attrition.

My experience of damaged support brigades hasn't been too bad but this may be because of my making sure that org is properly balanced across the brigade range. My understanding is that divisions are indivisible for combat purposes and hence most fears about these changes are unjustified.

Of course, my reason for 2+2 divisions is to do with manpower efficiency and maximising force capability for the forces available.

Looks quite interesting, have to see how this shall turn out.

Glad to have you aboard.

Dammit, I already had enough on my plate before I started to read this. Now I'm sunk. I'll never get everything done for the next year or so before this AAR wraps up with a Polish WC. Dammit.

First off, I apologize if you've already spent time answering any of this. I had to skim it the first time. I think I mentioned I have time management issues. I promise to read it all the way through as soon as I can. I can't stop myself from typing a post anyway. So - I think I gathered that you suggest a static defense involving lost territory is admitting defeat. I think that's true only if the Allies never ever intervene. So I guess I can't get the idea of a Polish Maginot with GAR and ENG out of my heard.

I noted in the update log for 1.4 that ENGs have been upgraded on the defense:

* Land
- Engineers are now much better at defending in all rough terrain.
- Engineers now gives nice bonuses to defending.

That leads me to suspect that ENG are now a viable option.

So many thoughts. I have to stop here. Thanks for the new distraction, dammit.

-- Beppo

My experience is that allied intervention is a joke. This is rather unfortunate as I'm not sure Poland can actually survive without some allied contribution.

I don't believe that engineers will actually do me any good. They are very poor value for combat contribution (no firepower) and most of their special capabilities are useful for attack rather than defence.

His last post was 13 days ago..
What happened dude,the Germans beat you up so bad ?:rofl:

As above, work and investigating things

You are obviously an expert, I will be following this with interest. Given your decision of not building an air force, aren´t you going to add some anti aircraft brigades to the divisions? Without air force and anti aircraft the German planes will bomber you to pieces.

The decision to build no airforce is a provisional one around the execution of plan 1 which is being investigated, in all its variants, to see what the consequences are. I am fairly certain I will rerun the first section with airforce at some point so we can all see the difference. I agree that I'm going to be balsted by the Luftwaffe but the big question is how quickly can they achieve a decisive effect.

Mere words cannot express my opinion on AA brigades. They remain the most useless unit in the game same as in HOI2 as they don't provide any genuinely useful protective effect for the surrounding friendly units.