Testing Out Field Hospitals Effectiveness - Hoi4 Testing
Вставка
- Опубліковано 21 вер 2024
- Are field hospitals as bad as everyone says they are? Should you bother researching them? Testing them out during bard to see if it is worthwhile or not.
Twitch.tv/71Cloak - Ігри
If they increased the exp loss and decreased the cost, they might be a bit more viable as a way to keep veteran units
They can be nice for grinding vets in Spain but once you convert to tanks, there are better support companies to use. Even then, you really want lvl 2/3 FHs for them to do anything and investing in Fh tech is just such a waste of time.
Exp loss is already wayyy too high.
I _never_ get units higher than what you can train them.
Either they win (tank divs), which means the combat didn't last long enough.
Or the combat lasts so long that you take more losses than you gain Exp. So the replacements cancel out whatever gains you made anyways...
IRL, you actually got Veterans, right?
But in the game, I never make it beyond Regulars :(
So far I got the highest trained units in combats where I played a minor on the defense and was horribly outgunned (and would have lost the war if the major didn't arrive to help). As Austria defending the mountains against Germany with infantry + AT I got my troops all the way to max XP, but only while taking horrendous losses - it's just that the enemy took that much more and attacked ruthlessly without regard for their own men.
It'd be cool if they could scale to like save more XP on veteran units or smth like that. Maybe even get more trickleback too.
@@MrNicoJac I’ll get one unit to veteran in the early game but late game I’m lucky to have regular
The best use case for Field Hospitals is for training up divisions to be veteran. Trickleback is also recursive, so FH1 multiplies your manpower pool by a limit, since you get 20% of the trickleback as trickleback and that increases as you go on. So FH1 is a 1.248x (25%) increase in manpower pool. FH2 is 1.425x (43%) increase, FH3 is 1.6496 (65%) and finally FH4 literally doubles your manpower pool 1 + 0.5 + 0.25 + 0.125... = 2x
I think a single war doesn't really show the power of Trickleback, its sucessive wars over a long period of time for countries like Germany and Japan, where you can build up both veterancy, and stack many instances of trickleback. Even so you should only use them if your frontage is limited and that IC couldn't go towards something more useful.
They also work especially well with meatwall divisions (30-50w infantry spread deep in Soviet union) but thats not really meta
hol 'up.... you play hoi4?!
wtf are you doing here
^ Haha these guys nailed my reaction.
"The best use case for Field Hospitals is for training up divisions to be veteran." The thing is I wasn't showing a significant difference in experience level between the 2 tests. 7 of the 8 armies started at lvl 3 0% towards level 4 and ended lvl 3 about 10% progress towards lvl 4. It's the same for both tests. XP retention just doesn't seem that strong.
The only instance I have seen where field hospitals might have made a difference in winning or losing the war was an MP game where the Soviets went for infantry spam. The only really started to lose when they ran out of manpower after battleplanning away 25 million men. Adding it field hospital 3s would have given them an effective 15 million more manpower to throw away. That may have been enough for the Allies to D-Day and turn the tide but I doubt it given the state of the allies.
@@71Cloak Well the war you simulated had hardly any German losses at all, even without field hospitals. Of course you wouldn't see much difference in EXP loss when you're barely losing EXP in the first place.
i think fighting without field hospitals should add small negative trickle to war support.
Absolutely brutal, but I like it!
In the latest patch, I think did something simillair, damn good prediction sir!
It does now in Arms Against Tyranny, taking insane war casualties will rightfully tank your war support.
indeed
It's very lame that field hospitals are as bad as they are. Having access to medical care while in the field makes a huge difference in real life and I really feel this support company should be something you want to give only slightly less priority than engineers and reconnaissance. Maybe they should give it some recovery rate as well to emulate improved morale due to knowing you won't die from an infected wound if you get mildly injured (and not having to see such cases among your fellow troops). As quite small injuries can become critical if untreated I also feel like base casualties should maybe be tuned up a bit, but brought back to more reasonable levels by the first level of field hospitals with each successive level giving relatively minor improvements after that.
As a field hospital fanatic I will keep using them even if their only stat is IC cost, though.
Recon is also weirdly crap btw. Outside of maybe light tank recon to get extra AT or if you have a bunch of lights to get "free" at
Yeah, I agree with you. Field Hospital should get a huge buff or maybe give really bad recovery debuff to units that does't have FH.
@@bigrabii9470 That is true. In real life few things beat good recon when matched with an even opponent.
@@holandreas Yeah recon should be very important, instead it's a waste. Though tbf all of the support companies are slightly weird, every single "real" division should just have all of them as standard
Big F. I like the idea behind it, as I like to imagine that less losses will mean a quicker rebuilding after the war and a stronger economy for it. But with the effect being so little that it barely even counters the increase in manpower required, well that is just absurd. Might still use it for RP purposes, but they seriously need to be buffed, or there needs to be a "injured" manpower pool, from which you have a yearly chance to recover x percent and field hospitals would ensure that a lot more casualties would land there instead of outright dying.
And tack on an org bonus for the added morale having a functioning medical system adds.
i find it annoying that so many companies and equipment are completely useless in this game especially in single player. you would think since every decent army since forever had medics would mean that medics would be worth it. this game is so counter intuitive with its bullshit balancing.
I mean, World War 2 being exclusively won by who has the most airplanes is ridiculous, because you arent even strat bombing, you are just zooming Fighters overhead and letting 20000 Dive Bombers BTFO the enemies units.
Meanwhile the rest of your army is LT 1s and Inf Equip 1 nerds
yeah, like what should we have options. There should be just meta button, easy
What I think they should do is to intergrate Supply companies and Field Hospitals into 1 company
And I think they should rework the tickleback system, A division that's closer to the supply depot or has sufficient supplies should passively has X% amount of tickleback
When a soldier in the froutline gets hit, you drive this wounded man into a local nearby hospital to get treatment, a Supply Company should simplify this step by having him treated near the frontline , and therefore less supply comsumptions
field hospitals should also give recovery rate, ofc if a division has downtime and they have field hospitals they should be able to recuperate faster in between fights. the only way to get this in-game currently is to research the Airborne Medical Detail in your Paratroopers special forces doctrine, which gives +15% recovery rate but ONLY to paratroopers. Why?
@@infiniminer7677 well in the current version you can at least have your entire army paratroopers, still compared to Rangers and Pioneers, Airborne FHs are a farcry from these 2, but that's a different topic
@@infiniminer7677but then again, when you do a paradrop, them paratroopers may suffer certain amounts of damages to its HP and Org due to static AA and other various reasons, so a 15% recovery rate with a support company that heals your soldiers from the ground up really doesnt sound that bad,
still, I'm just comparing Airborne FH as a "support company that benefits the frontline troops" to other support companies, the way we are using a typical paratroopers are very different from mountaineers and marines, so there's that
Instinctively I would use them for Italy. This somewhat validates that. Italy might hit that sweet spot where they are a little low on the man power side but with enough IC to afford hospitals as to make it worthwhile. I thought I noticed they increase breakthrough a bit as well for some reason?
In any case I think they should make the experience gain/retention buff a little more powerful as well as the manpower retention. I also think they should positively affect war support and/or recruitable population in some way. People would be less hesitant about supporting the war or serving themselves if they know the nation is trying to take care of their troops. Or perhaps a small morale bonus to combat as troops don't feel like they're just cannon fodder? I dunno, lots of ways to make them subtly more practical in game beyond just roleplay.
maybe they can make you lose org slower because you can keep the momentum going in combat or increases recovery rate.
I really like your ideas, though. maybe the percentage of divisions with field hospitals means more manpower available and also increases mobilization speed?
Maybe just have manpower losses have an impact on war support, increase manpower losses and improve field hospital manpower retention.
Having manpower losses decrease war support would make sense.
Would also be a penalty against the AI being stupid, and fighting until the end of the end.
It would make more sense that, once the UK has lost 10M men, they'd just surrender, Sea Lion or not
Yeah manpower losses decreasing war support and field hospitals mitigating that somewhat would make a lot of sense!
After using a lot of FH in my noobie times. I would say you can fight for longer as Italy (all this before NSB) but is better to put those militaries factories into another thing to get better fighting capabilities.
They do actually provide combat bonuses. In that you can more easily achieve high xp ranks faster and maintain that veteran rank. 75% combat bonus at max rank is absolutely massive. I find it hard to get to that rank without field hospitals and to maintain it.
Bingo
Yeah, field hospitals need a buff. Maybe if they added a reduce attrition stat to them and buffed the exp loss stat.
Reduced attrition wont save manpower though, because attrition only ever has an effect on equipment. My vote goes towards significantly lowering their cost and upping their org.
Their main purpose needs to be increasing your divisions veteran level. Any other purpose is useless
Nice video, but when you play as British Raj, you can get industrially competant in late 42/early 43, but that -69 cent recruitable population factor makes manpower a concern for relatively big nation of Raj.
Manpower shouldn't be an issue as India. Even with the negative recruitable pop you should have 4.5 million manpower available to you on extensive conscription. That is way more manpower than India has the industrial capacity to use effectively.
@@71Cloak there are very few examples for nations with a low population but a at least 'decent' industry. hungary maybe or even canada could fit, but still there'd be better things to spend your ic on.
@@red_seven_ And better ways to spend research slots
@@red_seven_ I recently had great success with field hospitals and Canada. Every single one of my 24 divisions ended up with max veterancy. After Berlin finally fell, they drove all the way to the Urals.
I play Canada a lot and I think they are good nation for Field Hospital. Canada has limited manpower but surprisingly good industrial capacity and typically don't show up in Europe in force before field hospital 3 is available anyway. As a democratic nation, one available citation is the order of the lion that has an extra 25% reduction in xp penalties from losses which compounds well with the hospital resulting in extremely well trained troops. Paratroopers get an opportunity for a citation every drop as far as I can tell so you can get an almost idiotically high XP retention with those.
Thank you I can finally have something to show to people who still to this day argue for field hospitals. I wouldn't use them even if there were no other support companies on account of the org loss
Field hospitals should increase organization or at least improve recovery rate.
this is a test on the short run, what if you are at war for 3 to 4 years a long run test, then would the manpower return be worth it?
imo the basic problem is that base game laws and bonuses are way too generous with manpower. noone ever runs out or even low depsite horrendous losses. this is part of the problem with field hospitals: extensive conscription gives you tons of manpower for a very negligible penalty.
Often in the late game as mid-tier powers such as Spain or Italy I start to run out of manpower even on Extensive, and Field Hospitals can be invaluable in preventing/delaying that
@@demrasnawla By late game the penalties for Service by Requirement are rather trivial and, generally, you have so much production and so many production bonuses from the tech tree that even All Adults Serve and the -30% production malus isn't that big of a deal. And field hospitals are expensive so you're going to have to pay production one way or the other, better to pay it late game than early to mid game.
That is historically accurate
A part of me kind of wishes that stricter conscription and higher economy laws had an effect on stability or something like it.
You seriously want me to believe I can have no factories producing consumer goods, every man 18 or old is fighting abroad, and my people are the happiest they've ever been?
@@Mike-ukr lol
Oh my god I just came to your channel, wondering if you made a video on Field Hospitals. Realized that you didn't. Watched the disaster save video instead. Got notification bell. You uploaded about field hospitals. Are you an incarnation of Jesus?
"Small nations never have enough industry" Not always. It really depends on what you're doing. If you're a small nation doing a world conquest once you take out of a few majors you'll have plenty of industry, but never enough manpower. MPs and field hospitals are pretty important. hoi4 is incredibly easy, so unless you're playing sub-optimally in some way it's going to be boring. One of the ways I enjoy making it harder is to not abuse the unlimited manpower of puppets.
This. I was making crusader kings achievements and hospitals carried me hard
Field Hospitals need a buff, they are a really good idea poorly executed. Something that could make them viable would be instead of requiring a flat number of manpower, trucks and support equipment to add the field hospitals having it to be a percentage of the total size of the division and having the FH take no loses while at battle.
I mean small countries can't afford to field large 40 width divisions, and for a 18-20 with, adding FH for 20% of the cost is too expensive
Manpower is drastically undervalued because training is obscenely undervalued.
It's waaaaaaaaay too effective to send raw recruits to the field and have them somehow only be 25% less effective than actual trained troops. It's insane. Deploying troops ahead of time when they only have 20% training should make them 80% less effective, if not more.
Also, that's about 450 days of research or a rushed fighter 2 or tank 2 (with bonus).
You should always get Field Hospitals for world conquer runs, because even 15 million manpower can go real fast when you're fighting multiple majors at once with red air
Beyond that though the benefits are negligible
sounds more like you are using shit divisions
Not sure how you do world conquest runs but for me field hospitals are useless. The IC cost slows down your rate of conquest. Fewer divisions = slower conquest. Manpower need never be an issue when you can merely puppet a high population country and fill your army with thier manpower.
I feel like these tutorials are made only for MP
I'm using it for my Austohungry achievement. Thank you for saving myself from my own mistake!
Honestly, I only use these as Italy, because I need them for all of the shenanigans.
I remember being told a long time ago that the trickleback from field hospitals also affects enemy equipment losses, so field hospitals were an indirect way of capturing enemy equipment, never tested it though so could be bs or patched
Field hospital only let you not lose your own equipment.
think of it like this soldier goes down he drops his riffle, ammo and backpack next to him.
whit out hospital he would die and his equipment would remain there,
there is no [Call of duty 2: soviet Commissar whit a megaphone shoting] one man carry the weapon one man carries the ammo if the man whit the riffle dies the man whit out the riffle pick up the riffle and fight.
if you got a medic he would pick up the wounded soldier and his gear carry it back to the hospital where it would be returned to stock whit the soldier.
@@Zack_Wester I know how it's meant to work, I was inferring that it was a bug, sorry for not being clearer
They are even worse than pre-NSB. At least back in the day you could slap them onto fat 40-width divisions, but now smaller divisions are much better in almost every way, you get diminishing returns for vastly increased cost.
Field hospital is not for saving the manpower pool, it's for saving the division manpower.
There's the reinforce rate thingy, basically how fast you recover you division strength, this thing is important if you are in a hard battle, your divisions will take damage to the strength to a point that they can't hold the frontline anymore, then there's two factors, you either reinforce fast enough by drawing from manpower pool and equipment stash, or you save them by adding field hospital and maintenance company, therefore you get to get a much more durable division.
If you go in to the grand battle planning doctrine, this is especially good for you keep pushing, you are more durable and got big planning bonus, you won't let your enemy reorganize themselves.
For very small nations (Estonia, Luxenbourg, bhutan, ...) does the same really hold? Often due to focuses the industry capacity is much more compared to the manpower.
i think the problem with field hospital is mostly because in this game manpower is "disposeable number", in reality during WW2 (and any other war) losing manpower had bad repercussion such as less man filling the factory (in this game at least its tied up to conscription law), reducing combat effectiveness of unit because of loss in experience (this also already being implemented in the game) and increase unwillingness of population to keep the war going because of the loss in general aka political repercussion (now this one is not implemented in any shape or form) the problem with "disposable number" because there are no general repercussion to the player on fighting a war with high casualities, saving manpower is not an issue, the malus of conscription law easily recouped by having more factory (eventhough the problem is not the factory itself but the actual ppl who work in the factory) while most unit used as front filler who doesnt do much of fighting thus combat effectiveness is also not an issue
Im mildly curious if the new swiss focus to add +50% trickleback and -45% xp loss makes hospitals worth it specifically for the Swiss. At field hospital 3 that would provide +100% trickleback and -75% xp loss - that seems large enough that you might gain veterancy.
If you have strong industry, and low manpower, just go with armored divisions.
Have you seen the newest PDX patch notes? It’s like they targeted you specifically with their conversion and motorised equipment nerfs
Yes I did a video on it.
Saving 110 000 men in just 3 months of war is huuge, that's 440 000 men per year
So they pay their IC cost back because you won't have to increase your conscription law or at least only much later and don't get the industry debuffs they come with
Its not 3 months of war though. Its the entirety of Barb. If you are only saving 100k invading the soviets then you aren't saving that much at all.
@@71Cloak Ok i made a mistake, the test ran for 4 months not 3. Your Barb may have went well and was finished in just 4 months, that's not guaranteed to be the case for everyone every time tho
Btw, did the war summary screen depict your casualties accurately or did you have to resort to substracting the available manpower to get the correct casualties?
@@marthvader14 the war screen causalities seems to be accurate. That Barb is how your Barb should go if you have a good build. The only console command used was research on click to gove myself field hospital 3s. The rest was an actual build that I did.
@@71Cloak Thanks good to know
I just mean the success can vary, for example I might have a hard time Barbing in Multiplayer against a better player or I'm not as strong as optimal because the western front took longer,...
I swear by field hospitals. they save your production because you don't have to go up a recruitment law and with the trickle back your divisions will actually get experience. I know no youtuber uses them and everyone says they aren't worth it, but I strongly disagree.
Edit: Also, its not like you aren't already producing trucks, infantry equipment, and support equipment anyway so the added "production costs" doesn't hit as hard as people make it out to.
As he says majors don't need the extra manpower. And minors can't afford it. So I think other support companies are more important.
@@willholliday3537 if you’re playing with a mod that gives more support company slots than field hospitals are a nice addition but definitely other support companies are more important
I 100% agree with you. I see a significative difference whether I use them or not. Granted, the tests may show otherwise, so I don't know, but I get entire different results in my playthroughs. Like, I have a bunch of level 2-4 instead of level 0-2, my production is better (because I'm not up a conscription law, and I would have produced something else to fill that support slot anyway, and the other things does not feel like they make much a difference). Having veterans means I can more easily punch through chokepoints even with low supplies (because less tanks needed). Heck, I may not even need to produce tanks because leveled infantry is sometimes enough, etc.
Can I quantify it ? No. But can I see the difference when I play ? Hell yeah.
You know what saves you a lot of manpower? Winning battles
Field Hospitals do absolutely nothing to help you win battles. Using field hospitals is at best a negligible manpower save and at worst actually impeding your divisions by giving them org penalties that could have been used for something else.
even with that it still cost more, the increase of loses he found is 13% which mean its like a lose of around 12% producution and service by requirement is only a 10% lose
I really wish these were better. I like the idea of a support company that saves manpower.
The main issue with Field Hospitals is I don't think it does what it's largely meant to do: help save you manpower from combat and assist in vetting your units.
Hardly do I ever have Seasoned or Veteran troops unless I'm Japan always winning battles against China or receive units from a focus tree.
Field Hospitals, especially since they don't offer much in actual combat, should be buffed to help you gain vet units. I should be seeing some Seasoned units that FH and have been winning battles. It definitely needs a buff.
field hospitals do increase breakthrough since they come with trucks, so there's a minor combat advantage
Really sobering to see those numbers. Yet when I've used them it was usually playing Japan or Italy and by mid-war I found I had several solid seasoned heading towards veteran divisions so maybe there is a greater effect over time?
Might be worth it if you wanna go to total mobilization.
Field Hospitals only useful in MP in tank divisions if you have 3 exp level. It is allow you to have +25% bonus and not drop to level 2 in tanks vs tanks engagements.
imho that is not the whole calculation.
you need to take into account the industry penalties of higher conscription laws given that trickleback is recursive.
i don't have the numbers, but if you run a lot of factories as a mayor nation the industry penalties might be worse in the end.
also i recently finally managed to defeat germany as neutral austria in a historical regular ironman game.
without the trickleback i would simply have run out of manpower when defending/couterpushing since you can only really produce infantry after all
field hospital should be a tech instead of a support company. or just make it free, no trucks + equipment lol
I feel like if they reduced the equipment cost it'd make them at least viable for smaller nations. Maybe 66% of the supp equip and 50% of the trucks? Was doing a Romania game and I wanted to go for hospitals for the exact manpower reason, but I had no where near the trucks and supp equip to use them.
Swiss can now get 100% trickleback...and it's still suspect lol.
But you did not take in to consideration is that if hospitals manage to keep units on lvl4 instead of dropping to lvl3 then you are getting a +25% modifier on all stats in combat.
You are assuming that you are even going to get to lvl 4 anyways. Starting at lvl 3 0xp I got to lvl 3 10% of the way to level 4 with field hospitals. That is not significantly higher than without field hospitals which where all still level 3.
Perhaps they are better on higher difficulty levels or MP? Where the war will need to be more of a long term grind?
Yeah I'd like to the see results for a longer war like 3-4 years not 3-4 months.
In a MP game, most losses will be incurred by encirclements, effectively negating the purpose of the field hospital
@@otatoshio4315 that makes sense
This video might need mild update regarding the war support "benefit" of field hospitals? probably, still niche for defending countries that take mass casualties like the soviets.
Only used once in my Byzantium empire play
do field hospital strike force with force attack!
I was playing as Poland and used hospitals and for me they worked quite well in my opinion. I dominated both Russia and Germany with few losses even though I just battleplanned with light micromanagement. I lost only about 400k to both sides combined. Maybe I was just lucky
this is nothing to say of the opportunity cost of wasting a support slot on them
I just use them to create elite Panzer units that absolutely crush anything before them.
Base field hospitals suck.
But if you can get mods that let you stack up to 90%+ it’s pretty good.
only reason to have them is retaining xp. damege dealt to the hp is the same. i remember reading that some manpower will be added to the country's menpower pool few years later but i don't remember where exactly i read it and what i actully readed. use them when you have less than 10 unarmored infantry battalions in the division.
Thank you for this!
Even with field hospitals and tank mp, and small losses on the actual battlefield, I quite often run out of manpower playing smaller(not smallest) nations lol. E.g. Yugo trying to take as much as possible, fighting axis first and then allies, there is just simply too much ground you need to cover with divicions
canada bulgaria and hungary could benefit from this if they go on the output end of their focus trees but its not going to make that much of a difference for manpower as you said maby 20-30k saved of a low pool and thats still at the cost of eq output
could just put them on high combat width units
Maybe decrease of war support with losses could be good. At least people have to make war propaganda regularly. Otherwise they should have to demobilize or get those bad events(mutinies etc) .
I ran out of manpower as Germany (10m+ casaulties) because I went Motorized+Rocket Arty actually. In hindsight I should have used Field Hospitals.
I would say in hindsight you should never lose that amount of manpower. A world conquest run as Germany should only cost you 1-2 million manpower in losses.
@@71Cloak If you think it's possible to only take 1-2m casualties with only Motorized (No planes) only then be my guest.
It probably is if you want to be a weirdo and micro as Germany in an SP game.
@@FatheredPuma81 Bruh! no support AA for speedy boys? get clapped, clown!
I know field hospitals were never meta but from what I experienced it seems NSB diminished their usefulness even further. I remember in pre NSB days as Poland I included them and while on the defense it reliably leveled up my front to 1 lvl above what is achievable by training. It was most likely because Soviets AI kept grinding 7 milion manpower over 1.5 year by zerg rushing into defensive meatgrinder. But since NSB they no longer do. Also whenever I went on the attack I stopped observing huge exp gains.
So it seems they were only even good because of bad AI behaviour?
Can you update it with new Switzerland spirit from bba?
Field hospitals need to give other benefits like reducing attrition or strengthening morale
They need to reduce the cost and make it so your units don't lose any xp from reinforcing combat losses. This way their purpose is to keep your division levels high.
They're really good on minors with decent industry but low manpower. Sure they cost more, but when you're desperately trying to scrape out every last drop of manpower then you'll regret not having gone them. Even on majors if you go for WC, you can end up chewing through your manpower and wishing you had more.
Okay so MP has 20 Defense and Ive been putting MP with Engineer Company's on my shore defense. Is that stupid?
for the mp part, yes it is, sadly. if at all you need mp in a garrison template but even a single cavalry bataillon is usually enough in that case.
Once you have support aa, art eng, sure you could add mp if you have extra support equipment lying around.
@@71Cloak Thanks!
I see no reason why not especially if Manpower is not an issue and you don't want to train more of those divisions
It's a shame that field hospitals are so useless, while in real life it's almost impossible to imagine an army without field hospitals, they are just crucial. It's like without hospitals mp losses should be three times more(because all wounded will surely become dead very soon) , and org regain will be significantly lower (even for weakly wounded will be harder to recover)
Battleplan is not a real test its 100% RNG set up an actual test if you want to see results. You are also testing the wtong things. Field hospitals are good on tanks because of their low hp they tend to loose xp fighting other tanks. So keeping xp is good. Also if manpower trickleback to the division after end fight its really good bacause your tanks wont need to wait for manpower as long where as if it trickleback to the manpower pool its bad
Having done about 30 invasions of the USSR since no step back came out (for testing) it really isn't that rng. The same divisions will lose around the same equipment and take approximately the same amount of time to capitulate the soviets. Also if you are going to manually micro every battle and avoid any bad trade then you aren't going to lose enough manpower for them to be worthwhile anyways.
aat made them quite good
It does give breakthrough. It ain't much, but not 0 and with the low base breakthrough of infantry it can be (depending on division width) a somehwat descent % increase. Not really worth to make it just for this though.
where does it say it gives breakthrough?
@@madkills10 It is only 5, which as far as I know every supprt company with motorised gives. You can pause the vid at 0:20 when he hovers over the support company. The +5 brings it from 80 to 85, which is a 6.25% increase. This stat is a raw stat, so the % increase on a 10W infantry would be grater, but on a 40W tank division it might not even reach 0.1%.
@@Vincrand oh wow yeah, I didn't know that motorised support gave 5 breakthrough. It's probably only worth it if you had extra supplies though I imagine
@@madkills10 The manpower it gives back over a campaign is also significantly more than show in the video. In a single quick war you save a bit of manpower as shown (because of the large manpower investment), but for the wars thereafter you already have invested the manpower prior to it, so all the manpower saved is direct profit instead of repaying invested manpower.
It's a descent choice as 5th supoort company for an attacking infantry division, otherwise not worth it.
@@Vincrand maybe in MP, but in SP if your running out of manpower as a major then something wrong has happened. I can understand where your coming form but, personally, even say 500k 'saved' manpower over a full campaign still doesn't make it worth it for me
Do field hospitals give trickleback from resistance attacks to garrison units?
Interesting question! The problems still are the same. They cost a lot...
You made a point about micro, but could someone tell me the basics about micro? I'm a new player and not sure about that
Micro is how you manage divisions manually macro is how you manege country
Micro is how you manage your army. In the scope of this game, how you micro is basically *manually* lead your strong army (usually big tank divisions. Infantry can do too btw, but they don't have the speed so it's not easy to do encirclement) to attack into enemy line, usually at weak spot (low org line/weak infantry/no tank/no fort/avoid river, etc etc) and on favorable terrain. Aim to create a pocket and collapse them, basically all the work you do to minimize your losses.
Micro for HoI4 is referring to manually controlling your divisions vs using a battle plan and letting the AI do it.
in general i love your tests, but this time you compared regulars without FH to untrained with FH. isn't what very different?
7 of the 8 armies were regulars for both tests. It was only the 8 army that wasn't and they started with about the same xp for both tests as well.
@@71Cloak iirc you stated the normals started as reuglars and the ones with FH got them added and stard below exp? did i get something wrong? sry can't watch the video again rn
So, please give us the short list on what support groups have value.
1. AA
2. Engineers
3. Tank Recon
4. Logistics
5. Flame tank
this is all you ever need, maybe support arty earlier on when you dont have the tanks yet
@@pimmelfischli arty also?
what if we add them in garrison division :p
pretty certain they don't do anything in mp. :)
But.. roleplay 🥺🥺
what is ic?
Industrial cost; basically an indication of military factories that you need to produce this
@@Madmuli thank you. 300 hours and i still dont know shit lol
Do you have discord