German Strategy?

[unmerged(43564)]

1. What do you thing abaout moving slider to Central planing as Germany, it gives +15 % IC then +20 % IC then +25 % IC, amd it lowers consumer gods costs, but increses upgrade time and cost.

2. What type of Inf do you think Germany shoud prioritating in 36 campaing - Motorized Inf or Reguler Inf.


3. Can it be reasonable that Italy shoud mannage to hold the Nort Italien / French border alone, intill Polan is annexed.

 

[unmerged(21817)]

1. What do you thing abaout moving slider to Central planing as Germany, it gives +15 % IC then +20 % IC then +25 % IC, amd it lowers consumer gods costs, but increses upgrade time and cost.

2. What type of Inf do you think Germany shoud prioritating in 36 campaing - Motorized Inf or Reguler Inf.


3. Can it be reasonable that Italy shoud mannage to hold the Nort Italien / French border alone, intill Polan is annexed.

1. With the immense upgrade costs as of the last patch I prefer moving the slider towards proffesional army. However, if you decide to go Central Planning stop upgrading things and build new instead. In the long run you will gain from this massively.

2. Stay away from Mot/Mec like pestilence, they are simply not worth it until you get the extra land doctrines making them cheaper, and by that time, you will have better things to put your research into, no keep your infantry regular and if you want some faster units build panzers, (and of course lots and lots of mountaineers).

3. Italy will probably not be in the war, but if they for some reason are they are certainly capable of holding the French/Italian border.

 

[unmerged(34884)]

1. I agree with you that you either focus on building or on standing army and keep everything upgraded. When u start in 36 i would focus on building and thus central planning...when u start later upgrading will be more important and standing amry should be increased.

2. Motorized are quite useless in the beginning. They have almost the same skills as the regular inf. but they need oil and are more expensive. Although i usaully build some just because i like them...

3. Depending on the frontlines and engagements of Italy he/she should be able to defend the borders. But u dont need that many troops to take poland..

 

[unmerged(14035)]

1. What do you thing abaout moving slider to Central planing as Germany, it gives +15 % IC then +20 % IC then +25 % IC, amd it lowers consumer gods costs, but increses upgrade time and cost.

2. What type of Inf do you think Germany shoud prioritating in 36 campaing - Motorized Inf or Reguler Inf.

3. Can it be reasonable that Italy shoud mannage to hold the Nort Italien / French border alone, intill Polan is annexed.

I agree with the previous posters concerning point 1.

There are several drawbacks to mot inf when you compare it to leg inf:
1) It requires more tech (instead of researching mot you could get better brigades or air doctrines, for example)
2) It's more expensive to build and upgrade
3) It uses more supplies
4) It uses oil, which Germany doesn't have a whole lot of
5) Since it uses more supplies and also oil it uses more TC (roughly twice as much)
6) Mot inf has lower combat efficiency in rough terrain such as forests, swamps and mountains, and also in bad weather. In "muddy" conditions mot inf has a whopping -70% efficiency penalty.

It does have one big advantage though: speed. You can encircle the enemy with mot inf, but I honestly prefer to do this with tanks instead. If you use tanks for this they will also benefit from any "Panzer leader" traits (+10% efficiency), which mot inf will not get.

Of course there is also one more benefit to mot inf: you can (potentially) get the Combined Arms bonus if you mix it with tanks or mech. On the offensive this bonus is so small (+5%) that it's not realy worth it. On defence it's +15%, which is quite a lot, but the Germans don't win this game by defending stuff

 

[unmerged(15538)]

I agree with the previous posters concerning point 1.

There are several drawbacks to mot inf when you compare it to leg inf:
1) It requires more tech (instead of researching mot you could get better brigades or air doctrines, for example)
2) It's more expensive to build and upgrade
3) It uses more supplies
4) It uses oil, which Germany doesn't have a whole lot of
5) Since it uses more supplies and also oil it uses more TC (roughly twice as much)
6) Mot inf has lower combat efficiency in rough terrain such as forests, swamps and mountains, and also in bad weather. In "muddy" conditions mot inf has a whopping -70% efficiency penalty.

It does have one big advantage though: speed. You can encircle the enemy with mot inf, but I honestly prefer to do this with tanks instead. If you use tanks for this they will also benefit from any "Panzer leader" traits (+10% efficiency), which mot inf will not get.

Of course there is also one more benefit to mot inf: you can (potentially) get the Combined Arms bonus if you mix it with tanks or mech. On the offensive this bonus is so small (+5%) that it's not realy worth it. On defence it's +15%, which is quite a lot, but the Germans don't win this game by defending stuff

Great post.

I'm a UK player these days and my roomate is the germy Germans.

I prefer to use motorized infantry for three reasons:
1) speed
2) attachments
3) hardness

The 2nd is made more effective by the 1st, and the 3rd more effective by the 2nd.

Motorized units are faster, capable of utilizing hardness reducing brigades like SP and TD units, and have a lower softness than regular Infantry already.

I know nothing off the combined arms bonus, but any bonus is useful.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but motorized units have a better air attack than regular infantry? I think this is so.

All in all, you always need a mix, and certainly should have more regular infantry than motorized infantry. But, in my opinion, nothing is more important than SPEED on the offensive... than, well, firepower. I've often found myself cursing the slower infantry units as they march slowly into a provence, whereas my motor/armor units roll ahead. Further, if you go exclusively armor/inf without motor, you'll find your armor becomes awfully over extended on the offensive -- without inf that can keep up, the tanks can be cut off while deep in enemy teritory. Which sucks much and has hurt my roomate, as he lances through the French only to have me close the door behind him with my amor and motors.

 

[unmerged(34884)]

I must respond again to this thread cause I now also think mot inf has definetly some advantages over regular infantry. They are a great combo with panzers and their speed is a important plus.

However, and I would like to say this to High Command you always have to keep building regular infantry and have a good ratio of regulars and normal. Especially playing as germany. They are very important in almost all posible combat roles that i can imagine and can be very versatile.

 

[Brasidas]

High Command,

1. I'd move towards professional army til '39 then go central planning. You get the experience benefit of the standing army for your big buildup in 39-40 for Barbarossa and you get the 15% IC (and TC) boost for the first (second?) year of Barbarossa in 41. It's the TC that you really need.

2. Depends on what you mean by prioritize. The vast majority of your infantry needs to be "leg". Unless maybe you're Canada or something. But you'll find a few columns (6 3-div corps?) of motorized useful in holding terrain recently captured by your encirclements. Is it worth rushing motorized tech? Maybe improved. I'd call 41/'43 infantry a higher priority though.