@@angelo3998 good point, i tried to prioritise speed in some games but it just doesn't really fit for me xdd(ill try to make more planes, maybe that's the problem lol, maybe add in air supply too in a speedy tank build)
I build Battlecruisers that have a speed of 41, 3 rank one heavy turrets, scout plane and AA and they NEVR die. These are a late game design. 2 of these BCs with 2 CLs (AA and scout planes) and 6 DDs (antisubs and torps), make sure they can all go 40+ and they kill everything no matter how big the enemy fleet is. Just 10 ships in the group. Try it, it is amazing. No need for CVs, BBs or CAs. And go down trade interdiction.
@@scruffyy111 have you tried this build? I have never, and I do mean never, had one get sunk and their kill list goes onto the hundreds sometimes. If you are running a nation that can build these it is game over in the oceans once they start rolling out. I actually focused Greece on getting these bad boys out. I could only build two but that is all I needed. I cleaned up the entire Med with two BCs and the supports I mentioned. I said FU to everyone so I was at war with the Axis and Allies. I sunk every major powers fleets and never lost a BC. A CL and DD here and there though. I eventually lost that game when nuke came around because I didn't have the Aircraft numbers to stop it but the navy never failed.
"engineers = defending" now that really triggers me every time, engineers gives an attack bonus on amphibious, forts and urban. Stacking attack bonuses is key for big divisions, passing them just to save 125 IC is ridiculous
How often are you attacking into forts or performing naval invasions? The only really generally useful bonus in there is urban. I agree that bonus to urban is good, as urban areas typically also have some local supplies which means even when fully encircled they don't suffer the full out of supply penalties typical pockets suffer from, but is the bonus to urban large enough to warrant that expense? Maybe, but it's far from automatic like you're trying to put it.
At one point, while playng italy, britain had an unimaginably large amount of tanks. 18 tank divisions with 12 tank slots completely overwhelming my troops because I had no anti tank. So I slapped two anti tank units in a division and waited for the enemy tanks to delete themselves on that division. Honestly, I feel like the AI is watching Feedback's videos.
@@KFP_Prophet I once put tank symbol over my 40 width infantry. They really thought I had space marines. Unfortunate it changed nothing as my enemy wwas not prepared anyway
Armored recon adds +10% movement to forest, jungle, river, marsh, hills, mountains, plains and desert. Using them isn't always about the armor. Engineers can add up to 25/20 movement to rivers and marsh as well as some attack bonuses for a few terrains. Adding both engineers and armored recon to tank divisions can significantly reduce the movement and attack penalties you get from the tanks. If you then add flame tanks to the mix you can actually get movement and attack bonuses for crossing rivers. You can also get a +65% bonus vs. forts at the same time. Imagine that. Of course, we never have to cross rivers or break forts or move/attack through forests and marshes, so I guess they are useless after all.
Marines are definitely not only for naval invasions! One of my favorite nations to play as is Brazil, and in the Amazon basin there are a ton of rivers to cross into difficult terrain, which marines do much better. Can really be the difference between a stalemate and an easy breakthrough. They also have higher organization than regular infantry, so I tend to use them as general elite forces. 14 marines, 4 artillery, 2 light or later medium tanks for some armor and breakthrough, and 1 AA for a total of 45 width and over 50 ORG. Also, engineers really work well in the Amazon on the attack, as they increase movement across rivers by 25% which can otherwise be so slow that even of you win a battle, the enemy has time to move troops into the province before you cross that river and you have to fight again.
@@roboparks this! Marines are so bad ass. I build my Marines similar to how you build them except I don't use tanks (most of the time). I like to play countries in Europe and they still do so well. Most of the time my Marines are doing more breaking through than my attack divisions. The attack bonuses that they get on rivers, marshes, etc make them so viable as a regular attack group.
@Quasimofo Regular tanks, and line AA not support. Never tried amphibious tanks, might be even better. And the line AA because 45 is a good width, AA adds quite some piercing, and you want support companies that add things you cannot add with line units.
@Quasimofo The bonuses are fractional, I think it counts the line units but not sure exactly. Since my template has 14 marines and 7 non-marines, I think the bonus is reduced by 33%. But tanks add lots of other nice things, like hardness and armor, so in my opinion it is worth it. If it doesn't make too much sense in your situation, use marines instead of tanks.
I'm nearing my 100 hour mark in this game and the divisions have me at a learning roadblock. So many specific attributes and stats to worry about, and on top of all of it planning well enough to be able to replace old equipment with newly researched ones in an efficient manner, being able to manage potentially hundreds of divisions, tenfold generals to manage individually their strengths and weaknesses, I don't think I understand a single thing about naval yet and I still have barely been able to get into the actual tactical strategy part of the game. And I thought Stellaris was difficult!
If it is a roadblock right now, id advise you to just stop thinking about it. Build 7/2 infantry divisions (with sup aa, sup arty, eng) and 10/10 tank divisions (sup aa, log, maint and what else you want). Those may not be optimal templates, but they sure are good enough.
@@CG-eh6oe Oh man, okay. Damn this game is so complex! I just started playing a few days ago and have been hooked, but I am TERRIBLE. I've been just playing and guessing as I go along and learning that way. After my first game I figured out to spam civs early and how to balance buildings and the importance of political power, infrastructure and supply. My second game I figured out about world tension, ways to get sneaky territory without getting a world war raining down on you, dealing with resistance and how to command -- not use effectively mind you but simply how to actually use the UI -- my military, and all the bonuses with generals, and penalties for terrain or division sizes etc. My third game it occurred to me that I have absolutely no idea how to make proper divisions. I was just trying to get good stats, like high attack and breakthrough but without losing organization and supply too much. But then I had no idea about combat width and how to properly balance having really powerful divisions but being able to actually keep up with supply demands in ongoing fights. I was doing great stealing minors' lands but the moment I ran into major powers I stalemated badly. So now I'm gonna start a fourth game and hopefully figure out how to actually do division composition. Then I'm sure I'll figure out I have no clue how navies and air forces actually work and that my army composition sucks anyways even if I made good individual divisions finally. The whole experience has been peeling back layers of complexity and slowly learning how all these systems interact. And then I come onto a youtube video and see all these arguments about soft attack vs breakthrough, reliability, support companies, optimal combat width and it's like I know absolutely nothing again. Very fun and deep game but even after a a few days, save files and around 30 hours and I am still awful.
Hahaha, yeah stellaris is some weenie hut jr shit. I love it, but wow the difference between Paradox games in terms of complexity is crazy. Once you get your head around it it's not TOO bad though
3:40 this is pretty close to my go to infantry division these days, except I switch one of those artilleries to AA to make it 25w, also the supports I use are Sup arty and AA and logistics and signal companies. It shreds any AI army, especially with green air which is easily obtainable given its relatively low cost for such pushing power
14:36 The Free American Marines was actually design so that i could reduce the penalty when doing an naval invasion against japan.(it worked tho ig) 15:25 For the M75 Triumph, well i made it a bit cheaper and assign about 100 mils to it P.S Yes I made those goofy templates. thx for the pointers
The only point I'd make about antisub destroyers is that you can make a really cheap destroyer escort that will chase subs away from convoys. This can be really useful for patrolling areas where you don't have access to air support (where the navs can concentrate).
You can make flame tank for 2.1 IC, so it's arguably the cheapest support company, the expensive part is the daily consumption of fuel if you field a gazillion division.
In theory, the more expansive division you use, the more important the air is, if you gonna use big division, at least you need to add one battalion of AA. For example, the template of 6:43, because CAS don't care your armor, if CAS come and kill your 20% strength, basically you gonna say goodbye to 200 light tanks. However computer is stupied, so even without air, this template still do massacre.
13:19 I think signals make a lot of sense for marines cause if your unit doesn't reinforce quick enough your potentially week long invasion plan got thwarted
It's good to have infantry with 1 super armor medium for armor ( having more than one doesnt incrase average armor by too much) and go heavy on artillery for the soft attack and a anti tank support
On AA : from experience, having an AA support company and maybe a battalion is more than enough, mostly because, and this is just me, I do want the enemy to put their planes out. Even if you can't achieve green air, a few planes on Intercept and AA means the enemy will do minimal strength damage from CAS and they'll start losing planes over time. I've been able to grind entire air forces down this way when I didn't have one of my own, it's fun to watch and it's a drain on the enemy. Also, on org, I used to love having stupid amounts of org until I noticed High Organization for some reason is a big debuff for recovery. What gives, and what's the org limit before that happens ?
If I remember correctly, the high org debuff is not based on your division’s total org, but rather the percentage of it while recovering. For example, when a division is deorged and recovering, it gains a certain amount of org per hour, shown as hourly recovery. If you surpass a certain percentage (i think its 75% of your division’s total org) while recovering, then you get the high org debuff, which reduces your hourly recovery. It in no way affects a division’s total org, just the speed of recovery past a certain point. Hope this helps.
@@soberedsoldier2578 If I understood correctly, all divs recover at their template rate (other factors excluded) from 0%-75% org, then the last 75%-100% that slows down with the high org debuff? If that's true then a division with high org will spend more total time with the debuff, perhaps why OP noticed it more on their high org division. This would still mean higher org is better though because higher org division will recover to a higher number before getting the debuff: 40 org div gets to 30 before it kicks in, 60 org div gets to 45 before it kicks in.
@@fossar_ Yea, pretty sure that’s correct. The only reason why I even noticed this is when sending volunteers to Spain and hovering my cursor over the org and wondering why all of a sudden its recovering slower than usual. I wish they made it more prominent/easier to see than it currently is.
@@soberedsoldier2578 I guess it's something that applies equally to all units and more org is always better, that doesn't change so it seems a bit of an unnecessary mechanic from a game design point of view, especially if there's basically no info on it cos it's hidden in an obscure tooltip that doesn't explain it
I put engineers and motorized recon in all offensive divisions because they provide up to 20% movement speed in most terrain types letting you take the most advantage of breakthroughs
I fundamentally disagree with the anti signal company debate because I think they are misunderstanding the situation you might actually want signal companies. Signal companies are not useful when dealing with small armies, since you will get alot better results from micromanaging. When dealing with much larger fronts however, this becomes impractical (and besides the micromanage argument has never been good anyway since you can achieve pretty much anything with micromanaging in Hoi4 so focusing on that one on one battle situation which you can influence is pointless because you will always get the results you want). Signal companies become much more useful when you are dealing with very large armies on both sides, and you're actually going to regularly face and have large amounts of battlefield reserves (a battle of the allies and axis in France for instance is a good example of when this situation might arise). These battles can go for very long times and might even cycle through multiple rounds of units (who enter, fight, leave, reorganize, and reenter the battle multiple times) without moving simply due to the sheer amount of enemy units. Furthermore, if you have very large armies, or if you have alot of allies, most of those units that are fighting probably aren't even the most ideal unit to be fighting anyway. Why would you want for instance a defensively oriented infantry unit to be taking up valuable combat width? Of course you can micromanage this on a individual basis, but if you are trying to push through the enemy (and not play ww1 simulator) you're gonna have to break with your best offensive units. That's where signal companies come in, because you can use them to make sure that no matter which battle they enter they always end up in the battle almost immediately. It makes a huge difference in their tactical (as opposed to their individual combat) performance, and makes it actually possible to launch real offensives with your offensive units rather than just relying on monitoring the whole line. By no means should all your units have signal companies (that would kinda defeat the point), but at least your elite divisions such as Tanks and maybe special forces (depending on how you use them) should. It is true that there is also a defensive theory around them too (since they can be used to help keep reinforcing fronts and continue perpetual battles, I think most players are anti defeneive games anyway so probably havent experimented with these tactics. I think too many players are hung up on this idea that if you can achieve it by other means its not worth it rather than the more obvious are those other means reliable? Hoi4 is a game where you're meant to divide your attention alot, not micromanage every detail and signal companies are the ultimate "give this to your divisions so you can check on them less" tool in the game. Multi-player players know this alot because the biggest difference is that you, can't slow down the game and pause for everything and have to contend with multi front wars. If single players were faced with these kinda situations, I think they would gain a good understanding of why utilizing some of these abilities actually makes alot of sense, even if they are not perfect solutions.
@@novitrix9671 I had to thoroughly debunk AA tanks as having any use whatsoever. I covered what I think would be any argument for them. My goal is to in the short run get the community to stop using them and in the long run get PDX to fix them (by giving them some stats boosts to give them an actual role).
@@styleroler5816 Yes however the pacing and structure of your thoughts is like swimming through piss to find a cup of apple juice. By the way I support you in your goal, however AA tanks is quite a small fish to fry compared to the school of whales that the 'community' has let Paradox off the hook for dont you think?
I have used the 3x3 infantry 1x3 artillery, but support I use engineering, AT, and AA and field hospitals. Use it to hold my front lines. Been using it since day one of the game.
Hey, would you consider making a guide to navies (particularly naval invasions)? I might be missing something, but I don't see a video you've done on it since Man the Guns came out. I (like most people) usually just don't even bother building a strong navy, put divisions on my coastline. If I have to do a naval invasion, I will typically just gather all my ships to escort the units across the sea and ram through the supply area while the largest enemy fleets are repairing. But I'd be interested in learning to build an actual navy and using it to *prevent* naval invasions rather than just garrison coastlines.
Very good video. I'm just learning how to properly play and after seeing this vid I think my subs are over engineered and thus expensive. Playing as Australia and will likely be going after Japan.
Responding to that painful Artillery-heavy Mountaineer Division: I found a fun setup that works great while being easy to field; 9 Mountaineers, 2 Artillery, Engineer Company, and Artillery Company. 25-CW makes them stack perfectly in 3s on Mountains and they both attack and defend really well. In an Italy game I was able to get a 200k encirclement on the French-Italian border by using these guys to shockingly quickly encircle over the vast range of Mountains faster than anything I've ever done in the area. Just gotta make sure to always field em in sets of 3 to fully deploy on a Mountain, other wise they don't seem to work nearly as well
14:16 so i did some playtesting and i found that tacs are better than navs when it comes to killing subs. i think this is because navs use torpedos and tacs regular bombs, good luck hitting a sub with a torpedo
Speed doesn't win battles, but it does allow you to spider like old HOI4 and push for those rail lines, supply hubs and get encirclements before they can redeploy. It's not an end all, be all, but it will give you and advantage if you are able to make a breakthrough. Most notably this probably works where you are more evenly matched and can only win on one or 2 squares but with some speedy light tanks or motorized, you can overextend them and win quicker than you probably would have. It's niche but it does work.
Really this is why I think speed is underrated,sure it isn't the end all be all, it doesn't factor into battles. However speed gives a massive advantage for exploiting pushes and overall tactical positioning, an army of infantry and heavy tank doomstacks will always get outmaneuvered by mobile infantry and lighter tank forces
I'm no expert at this game and i have no idea about the mechanics in the back ground. When i build a division, i always put things in i would want it to have in reality. Ca 10000 men for inf. division with ca.20 combat width. And i always put a normal artillery, a normal AT company and a AA company in it. The same with my tank divisions. Ca. 12000 men, around 20 combat width, 3 medium tanks, 5 armored infantry, 1 mobile artillery, 1 mobile AT, 1 mobile AA and of course full support. Maybe horrible for game play, but good for my RP.
What I'd love to know, among many other things with this game, is can you make a pure AA division, then sit it 1 space back from your front lines to take care of the CAS. Also does it impact the bombers flying over the territory to hit the capital in another province? Second question is can I make drag racing tanks that are all engine and no armour that out pace trucks? Also, if I want to steal the enemy weapons does every unit need Maintenance company, or does only one unit in the stack fighting on the tile need it?
I May be wrong, but as I remember the division aa inflicts damage on cas only in battle, so as long as your aa div does not fight against enemy division it Will not inflict any damage on enemy planes. And I AM sure that div aa does not attack any units like bombers or fighters, the region aa does that. On the second topic, Yes you can. When I play as germany I make a super fast design, that can not actually win against anything, but it is much faster, than motorised infrantry. I also add a logystic and repair companies in order to increase delay in supplies and save up some resourses, because these builds suffer in reliability. When I go to war against france i Just send a couple of these divs in opening gaps, and take paris capitulating france super easily. And since these divs have got 1-3 of these tanks I use them for snaking, cutting supply lines and inflicting pain in the ass for opposing player or AI.
I once made a 40 width Division with 2 anti air, 2 anti tank, 2 artillery and the rest infantry as the Soviet Union on Deep Battle Doctrine, incredibly fun to use but overall ineffective, you get away with it against the AI though
This game really needs corps level command.Then we could create proper breakthrough, frontline divisions under one command and fast mobile under another one in tge army.
so when the new update came out, i wanted to try and make a small division with lots of support companies that could work as an all around for fighting the ai. what i came up with was 6 infantry, support arty, support anti air, support anti tank, engineers, and support rocket arty, while stacking as much entrenchment as i could, so grand battleplan, static warfare, and the entrenchment army spirit. any thoughts on it?
Are you sure that going over 100% reliability on tanks is a waste? After all division reliability is averaged out and motorized/mechanized have 80% reliability so if you go over 100% with your tanks you can get the average reliability to 100% or close to it when using a lot of motorized/mechanized to boost up organization. Unless the 100% reliability is a hard cap which means it isn't transferred over to the average calculations, in which case 100% wasteful.
Could you do a breakdown of all of the stats of a division in the division designer menu? It would be helpful for newer players (and maybe some veterans) such as myself. I always get confused when your talk about org, piercing, armor, etc.
When you have high hardness, breakthrough is redundant. AI just don't have enough hard attacks to use that many breakthrough points. Extra soft attack is always nice. On another hand attrition on 12 unit artillery can be harsh.
Am I the only one who adds amtracs and amphibious tanks to marine divisions? I used them in China once and it was so effective Japan couldn’t stop me. I would position them on rivers or jump canals with them and they couldn’t stop it. They capitulated by 1940
im fairly new i dont understand why he keeps saying if you have breakthrough you dont need soft attack? i thought breakthrough keeps you attacking longer but dont you also need to do damage in that time you are attacking?
Hey Feedback, will you ever go into the Road to 56 templates? All the extra stuff in the mod allows for really specialized divisions for almost any situation, and it makes multiplayer really interesting. I love my Jagers and deser infantry.
well why not make an another comment. Waiting the day when we can customize Divisions to the degree that we can do tanks. loving the fact that doctrines were removed from research tree.
Dave, question for you. Was doing some modding the other day and came across some textures in the la resistance dlc folder. They are skins/textures for some vehicles like the armoured cars. It's got the normal ones you'd expect like base texture, desert and winter but it also has one called elite which I have never seen in game. I even tried making a veteran division using the armoured car as the 3d model but still didn't show the texture. Any ideas what these are, cut feature maybe?
The tanks I've been using have Sloped armour, Skirts & Dozers. If your making flamers than just the dozers. Recon tanks again with Dozers. For infantry I've been trying 9 Infantry, 3 Artillery & 3 AA.
So why the hate on field hospitals? Unless I'm missing something I'd say they're essential especially if you're playing a smaller nation like Australia or Czechoslovakia
@@FeedbackIRL ideally yes, but losses are inevitable and smaller nations will feel the bite of attrition much sooner and harder than say the Soviet Union
@@FeedbackIRL If you can complete a game of Hearts of Iron 4 without taking a single casualty I will donate $1k to the charity of your choice (no mods/hacks/cheats etc, elite difficulty)
Lol what does a zero casualty threshold have to do with anything in HoI? Even as a minor you can take a few thousand without field hospitals but be inflicting them at a ratio of 10 to or even 20 to 1 with micro against AI, hence "not having to worry about it". Field hospitals are expensive for a minor and those resources could be put somewhere else. And majors often have plenty of manpower anyway.
I've heard this in many videos I've watched from you: You say that reliability on tanks should be really high, but pretty much always tell to get rid off maintenance companies. Why is that? Isn't it more cost effective to have tanks with 90% reliability + a lvl 2 maintenance company (hence 100% reliability)? Or do I understand something wrong with how said companies work?
If I see a division with 1300 breakthrough and 400 soft attack and you suggest to remove artillery, because "it has enough breakthrough", that proves you are not an expert in HOI combat :). Trust me, vs AI, you NEVER EVER should remove support engineers and artillery, this is base of every division (along with flame tank for offensive ones). Actually if you can afford, you should have both standard and rocket arty supports. vs AI you will never need 1000 breakthrough, unless you are trying to punch mountain forts with tanks ... , which will not work regardless, just minimizes loses. The "sword" division from 9:50 is one of best here, it will be totally effective vs AI. The only minus is width, 33 is just no go ....
It seems ypu are the person who is not an expert in HOI. First of all support artillery is the last thing you want to put in an army with 400 soft attack and breakthrough because it gives only a little soft attack and an organization and supply debuff. It has low HP so you will loose more manpower during combat. Do you even know how breakthrough works? A division with very high soft attack and breakthrough is for shure overkill but for tank division you do not essentially need high soft attack. Only if the enemy puts full organized divisions too fast on their defensive frontline during the retreat of other divisions. Against the ai you will need 1000 breakthrough in late game games if they spam divisions to their frontline that are unbreakable with 500 breakthrough or if you have no air because of industrial reasons. You need to cancel out enemy air support, river defenses, intel advantages, etc., the debuffs during the combat. I do not know why you named a 33 combat width division a no go because they overhauled all combat widths in the 1.11 update so 5, 10, 20 and 40 are no metas more at all.
@@heinrich6294 You need to have breakthrough bigger than attack of defending units, that's it. Please show me AI divisions which have more than 500 attack while defending. As for soft attack every point of attack higher than enemy defense does 4 times more damage, if I remember good (sorry, didn't play a game for a year :) ). So you want to have higher soft attack than enemy defense and if you can achieve that every additional soft attack does a lot, so you want it even more. Of course, you don't need that to break enemy lines. You can do it also with tanks having only 100 attack. You will eventually beat enemy org and break, but it will take much more time. Vs AI, it will usually be enough, so if you prefer, that's some way to play the game. But if you make divisions with 400+ soft attack and 200+ breakthrough, assuming green sky, you can usually draw a line, get some popcorn, hit attack button and enjoy the show :) So basically a division from 9:50 after removing 2 infantry and anti-air brigades. This will be almost best cost-effective anti-AI division that can be made. You can probably wield full army of those for Barbarossa as a Germany (+ some meat field infantry divisions). I bet this will win Barbarossa before 1942 on auto attack :). Try that ;) (edit: on Barbarossa as Ger you should not need anti-air at all, but that's just a small detail) As for 33 sized divisions, why it is no go ?, it is simple: You will usually fight on terrain of 84 or 90 width. Not sure about your math but how do you want to fill it in with divisons of 33 ? 33x2 = 66. If 2 divisions got into fight, they will leave gap of 84-66=18 or 90-66=24. That means they will be far from effective. 33x3 = 99. If somehow 3 divisions got into fight, you will face penalty from extra 15 or 9 and it will be probably even worse situation. Well, if you are tryhard, you can mix them with i.e. 20 size divisions and make a good use, but that requires a lot of micro management. With that, every division size is useful in this patch. but if you are not try-harding, you need width which can fit most common battlegrounds. So 20 can still work, 21 will usually be better and 27/28 or 42 is my personal favorite for offensive one. But it all depends of course in which region you fight.
Does equipment with reliability over 100% still increase the division reliability at its nominal value? Because then it makes sense to have over 100% reliability to offset the 90% reliability of infantry equipment and 80% reliability of trucks and mechanized.
I dont understand. Someone needs to explain to me why bigger divisions are better. Its been shown, i have no idea how many freaking times that smaller divisions are vastly superior. Why are people still using giant 40 widths?
you take less losses and have to produce only half the support for the same amount of combat width. If I can man all frontlines, all my divisions are 42-45 width. Otherwise sure, Ill drop to 27 or even 21
@@TheZweric Well, in tests I've done, the ic loss differences were marginal. You get double the org if you split your divisions. Why do you think you should lose less ic with bigger divisions?
@@deathdealer312 talking manpower losses. when I defend with my 45 width as netherlands against germany losses are close to 1:100 (yes, with forts) until I start counterattacking. When I do small divisions they take more supply and I lose even in offense those infantry divisions aren't bad at all
@@TheZweric uh ok? What does that prove? Split them and youd have double the org. You dont lose more with smaller divisions. Combat power is divided now. Do a test of it if you dont believe me. I have. Ive done extensive tests.
@@TheZweric why would you go for 45 width, I've read many times that its much better to go for 10, 20 or 40, because more division can fight at once, because combat width is usually 80 or 120 etc. So why go for 45?
We are going to settle this right now: SPEED OR ARMOR? Which is better??
CAS
imma say armor since speed is nerfed if you have bad supply;-;
Speed armour is useless for me atleast against ai since they have shit Anti tank and mainly uses infantry
@@angelo3998 good point, i tried to prioritise speed in some games but it just doesn't really fit for me xdd(ill try to make more planes, maybe that's the problem lol, maybe add in air supply too in a speedy tank build)
Depends on tactic
I build Battlecruisers that have a speed of 41, 3 rank one heavy turrets, scout plane and AA and they NEVR die.
These are a late game design.
2 of these BCs with 2 CLs (AA and scout planes) and 6 DDs (antisubs and torps), make sure they can all go 40+ and they kill everything no matter how big the enemy fleet is. Just 10 ships in the group.
Try it, it is amazing. No need for CVs, BBs or CAs. And go down trade interdiction.
How do you live through bombers?
imo battlecruisers are useless but that's just me
@@scruffyy111 have you tried this build? I have never, and I do mean never, had one get sunk and their kill list goes onto the hundreds sometimes.
If you are running a nation that can build these it is game over in the oceans once they start rolling out.
I actually focused Greece on getting these bad boys out. I could only build two but that is all I needed. I cleaned up the entire Med with two BCs and the supports I mentioned.
I said FU to everyone so I was at war with the Axis and Allies. I sunk every major powers fleets and never lost a BC. A CL and DD here and there though.
I eventually lost that game when nuke came around because I didn't have the Aircraft numbers to stop it but the navy never failed.
@@John-dp3lo what attack rules you used, always attack, high risk, medium risk?
@@almazhan777 medium risk. Repair priority high. They retreat so fast if the situation is bad they almost never take damage.
Background cat!
"engineers = defending" now that really triggers me every time, engineers gives an attack bonus on amphibious, forts and urban. Stacking attack bonuses is key for big divisions, passing them just to save 125 IC is ridiculous
How often are you attacking into forts or performing naval invasions? The only really generally useful bonus in there is urban. I agree that bonus to urban is good, as urban areas typically also have some local supplies which means even when fully encircled they don't suffer the full out of supply penalties typical pockets suffer from, but is the bonus to urban large enough to warrant that expense? Maybe, but it's far from automatic like you're trying to put it.
@@Owlr4idernever played an mp game with halfway competent players where the soviets didn’t use forts during barb
@@bourbonisto1721 I was speaking from a SP perspective, obviously MP is vastly different.
At one point, while playng italy, britain had an unimaginably large amount of tanks. 18 tank divisions with 12 tank slots completely overwhelming my troops because I had no anti tank. So I slapped two anti tank units in a division and waited for the enemy tanks to delete themselves on that division. Honestly, I feel like the AI is watching Feedback's videos.
3:36
"this division is defensive"
the division name: "attack infantry"
lmao xD
It's named that to fool the enemy of course
Put lipstick on a dog and its still a dog
@@KFP_Prophet I once put tank symbol over my 40 width infantry. They really thought I had space marines. Unfortunate it changed nothing as my enemy wwas not prepared anyway
@@FeedbackIRL but it's a sexy dog now
I like the way he gushes over hardness and even strokes the hardness bar with the cursor
Armored recon adds +10% movement to forest, jungle, river, marsh, hills, mountains, plains and desert. Using them isn't always about the armor. Engineers can add up to 25/20 movement to rivers and marsh as well as some attack bonuses for a few terrains. Adding both engineers and armored recon to tank divisions can significantly reduce the movement and attack penalties you get from the tanks. If you then add flame tanks to the mix you can actually get movement and attack bonuses for crossing rivers. You can also get a +65% bonus vs. forts at the same time. Imagine that.
Of course, we never have to cross rivers or break forts or move/attack through forests and marshes, so I guess they are useless after all.
This is why i always use flamers, engineers and armored recon, my medium tanks and trucks are zooming at 14 km/h
Marines are definitely not only for naval invasions! One of my favorite nations to play as is Brazil, and in the Amazon basin there are a ton of rivers to cross into difficult terrain, which marines do much better. Can really be the difference between a stalemate and an easy breakthrough. They also have higher organization than regular infantry, so I tend to use them as general elite forces. 14 marines, 4 artillery, 2 light or later medium tanks for some armor and breakthrough, and 1 AA for a total of 45 width and over 50 ORG.
Also, engineers really work well in the Amazon on the attack, as they increase movement across rivers by 25% which can otherwise be so slow that even of you win a battle, the enemy has time to move troops into the province before you cross that river and you have to fight again.
Marines with Amphibious Tanks for the win !!!!!!!!!!!
@@roboparks this! Marines are so bad ass. I build my Marines similar to how you build them except I don't use tanks (most of the time). I like to play countries in Europe and they still do so well. Most of the time my Marines are doing more breaking through than my attack divisions. The attack bonuses that they get on rivers, marshes, etc make them so viable as a regular attack group.
@Quasimofo Regular tanks, and line AA not support. Never tried amphibious tanks, might be even better. And the line AA because 45 is a good width, AA adds quite some piercing, and you want support companies that add things you cannot add with line units.
@Quasimofo The bonuses are fractional, I think it counts the line units but not sure exactly. Since my template has 14 marines and 7 non-marines, I think the bonus is reduced by 33%. But tanks add lots of other nice things, like hardness and armor, so in my opinion it is worth it. If it doesn't make too much sense in your situation, use marines instead of tanks.
You mean United Kingdom of Portugal and Brazil?
I'm nearing my 100 hour mark in this game and the divisions have me at a learning roadblock. So many specific attributes and stats to worry about, and on top of all of it planning well enough to be able to replace old equipment with newly researched ones in an efficient manner, being able to manage potentially hundreds of divisions, tenfold generals to manage individually their strengths and weaknesses, I don't think I understand a single thing about naval yet and I still have barely been able to get into the actual tactical strategy part of the game. And I thought Stellaris was difficult!
If it is a roadblock right now, id advise you to just stop thinking about it. Build 7/2 infantry divisions (with sup aa, sup arty, eng) and 10/10 tank divisions (sup aa, log, maint and what else you want). Those may not be optimal templates, but they sure are good enough.
@@CG-eh6oe Can you say what 7/2 and 10/10 is?
@@utewbd 7/2 is 7 infantry and 2 arty, 10/10 is 10 tanks and 10 mobile infantry (either motorised or mechanized).
@@CG-eh6oe Oh man, okay. Damn this game is so complex! I just started playing a few days ago and have been hooked, but I am TERRIBLE. I've been just playing and guessing as I go along and learning that way.
After my first game I figured out to spam civs early and how to balance buildings and the importance of political power, infrastructure and supply.
My second game I figured out about world tension, ways to get sneaky territory without getting a world war raining down on you, dealing with resistance and how to command -- not use effectively mind you but simply how to actually use the UI -- my military, and all the bonuses with generals, and penalties for terrain or division sizes etc.
My third game it occurred to me that I have absolutely no idea how to make proper divisions. I was just trying to get good stats, like high attack and breakthrough but without losing organization and supply too much. But then I had no idea about combat width and how to properly balance having really powerful divisions but being able to actually keep up with supply demands in ongoing fights. I was doing great stealing minors' lands but the moment I ran into major powers I stalemated badly.
So now I'm gonna start a fourth game and hopefully figure out how to actually do division composition. Then I'm sure I'll figure out I have no clue how navies and air forces actually work and that my army composition sucks anyways even if I made good individual divisions finally.
The whole experience has been peeling back layers of complexity and slowly learning how all these systems interact. And then I come onto a youtube video and see all these arguments about soft attack vs breakthrough, reliability, support companies, optimal combat width and it's like I know absolutely nothing again.
Very fun and deep game but even after a a few days, save files and around 30 hours and I am still awful.
Hahaha, yeah stellaris is some weenie hut jr shit. I love it, but wow the difference between Paradox games in terms of complexity is crazy. Once you get your head around it it's not TOO bad though
I didn't hear a word Dave said, too busy looking at the cat
3:40 this is pretty close to my go to infantry division these days, except I switch one of those artilleries to AA to make it 25w, also the supports I use are Sup arty and AA and logistics and signal companies. It shreds any AI army, especially with green air which is easily obtainable given its relatively low cost for such pushing power
Everyone:discussing war plans
Me:cat in background is so cute whats the cat name
14:36 The Free American Marines was actually design so that i could reduce the penalty when doing an naval invasion against japan.(it worked tho ig)
15:25 For the M75 Triumph, well i made it a bit cheaper and assign about 100 mils to it
P.S Yes I made those goofy templates. thx for the pointers
9:30 with superior fire power doctrine focus on suport company's. That temp late is awesome.
The only point I'd make about antisub destroyers is that you can make a really cheap destroyer escort that will chase subs away from convoys. This can be really useful for patrolling areas where you don't have access to air support (where the navs can concentrate).
You can make flame tank for 2.1 IC, so it's arguably the cheapest support company, the expensive part is the daily consumption of fuel if you field a gazillion division.
In theory, the more expansive division you use, the more important the air is, if you gonna use big division, at least you need to add one battalion of AA. For example, the template of 6:43, because CAS don't care your armor, if CAS come and kill your 20% strength, basically you gonna say goodbye to 200 light tanks.
However computer is stupied, so even without air, this template still do massacre.
13:19 I think signals make a lot of sense for marines cause if your unit doesn't reinforce quick enough your potentially week long invasion plan got thwarted
It's good to have infantry with 1 super armor medium for armor ( having more than one doesnt incrase average armor by too much) and go heavy on artillery for the soft attack and a anti tank support
On AA : from experience, having an AA support company and maybe a battalion is more than enough, mostly because, and this is just me, I do want the enemy to put their planes out. Even if you can't achieve green air, a few planes on Intercept and AA means the enemy will do minimal strength damage from CAS and they'll start losing planes over time. I've been able to grind entire air forces down this way when I didn't have one of my own, it's fun to watch and it's a drain on the enemy.
Also, on org, I used to love having stupid amounts of org until I noticed High Organization for some reason is a big debuff for recovery. What gives, and what's the org limit before that happens ?
I've never noticed High Organisation as a recovery debuff before either. Any info on when it kicks in and how significant it is?
If I remember correctly, the high org debuff is not based on your division’s total org, but rather the percentage of it while recovering. For example, when a division is deorged and recovering, it gains a certain amount of org per hour, shown as hourly recovery. If you surpass a certain percentage (i think its 75% of your division’s total org) while recovering, then you get the high org debuff, which reduces your hourly recovery. It in no way affects a division’s total org, just the speed of recovery past a certain point. Hope this helps.
@@soberedsoldier2578 If I understood correctly, all divs recover at their template rate (other factors excluded) from 0%-75% org, then the last 75%-100% that slows down with the high org debuff?
If that's true then a division with high org will spend more total time with the debuff, perhaps why OP noticed it more on their high org division.
This would still mean higher org is better though because higher org division will recover to a higher number before getting the debuff: 40 org div gets to 30 before it kicks in, 60 org div gets to 45 before it kicks in.
@@fossar_ Yea, pretty sure that’s correct. The only reason why I even noticed this is when sending volunteers to Spain and hovering my cursor over the org and wondering why all of a sudden its recovering slower than usual. I wish they made it more prominent/easier to see than it currently is.
@@soberedsoldier2578 I guess it's something that applies equally to all units and more org is always better, that doesn't change so it seems a bit of an unnecessary mechanic from a game design point of view, especially if there's basically no info on it cos it's hidden in an obscure tooltip that doesn't explain it
I put engineers and motorized recon in all offensive divisions because they provide up to 20% movement speed in most terrain types letting you take the most advantage of breakthroughs
2:55 yes, if you replace last 6 infantry battalions to have artillery only it would be perfect :D
I love when the blatant troll suggestions come through and Feedback carries on reviewing them like they were serious
Bait
@@FeedbackIRL ;)
I fundamentally disagree with the anti signal company debate because I think they are misunderstanding the situation you might actually want signal companies. Signal companies are not useful when dealing with small armies, since you will get alot better results from micromanaging. When dealing with much larger fronts however, this becomes impractical (and besides the micromanage argument has never been good anyway since you can achieve pretty much anything with micromanaging in Hoi4 so focusing on that one on one battle situation which you can influence is pointless because you will always get the results you want). Signal companies become much more useful when you are dealing with very large armies on both sides, and you're actually going to regularly face and have large amounts of battlefield reserves (a battle of the allies and axis in France for instance is a good example of when this situation might arise). These battles can go for very long times and might even cycle through multiple rounds of units (who enter, fight, leave, reorganize, and reenter the battle multiple times) without moving simply due to the sheer amount of enemy units. Furthermore, if you have very large armies, or if you have alot of allies, most of those units that are fighting probably aren't even the most ideal unit to be fighting anyway. Why would you want for instance a defensively oriented infantry unit to be taking up valuable combat width? Of course you can micromanage this on a individual basis, but if you are trying to push through the enemy (and not play ww1 simulator) you're gonna have to break with your best offensive units. That's where signal companies come in, because you can use them to make sure that no matter which battle they enter they always end up in the battle almost immediately. It makes a huge difference in their tactical (as opposed to their individual combat) performance, and makes it actually possible to launch real offensives with your offensive units rather than just relying on monitoring the whole line. By no means should all your units have signal companies (that would kinda defeat the point), but at least your elite divisions such as Tanks and maybe special forces (depending on how you use them) should. It is true that there is also a defensive theory around them too (since they can be used to help keep reinforcing fronts and continue perpetual battles, I think most players are anti defeneive games anyway so probably havent experimented with these tactics. I think too many players are hung up on this idea that if you can achieve it by other means its not worth it rather than the more obvious are those other means reliable? Hoi4 is a game where you're meant to divide your attention alot, not micromanage every detail and signal companies are the ultimate "give this to your divisions so you can check on them less" tool in the game. Multi-player players know this alot because the biggest difference is that you, can't slow down the game and pause for everything and have to contend with multi front wars. If single players were faced with these kinda situations, I think they would gain a good understanding of why utilizing some of these abilities actually makes alot of sense, even if they are not perfect solutions.
The entrenchment on this wall of text nearly ruined my reading breakthrough....
@@novitrix9671 I had to thoroughly debunk AA tanks as having any use whatsoever. I covered what I think would be any argument for them. My goal is to in the short run get the community to stop using them and in the long run get PDX to fix them (by giving them some stats boosts to give them an actual role).
@@styleroler5816 Yes however the pacing and structure of your thoughts is like swimming through piss to find a cup of apple juice.
By the way I support you in your goal, however AA tanks is quite a small fish to fry compared to the school of whales that the 'community' has let Paradox off the hook for dont you think?
Maintenance is required when builsing tank divisions. Max lvl maintenance company adds 20% reliability.
I have used the 3x3 infantry 1x3 artillery, but support I use engineering, AT, and AA and field hospitals. Use it to hold my front lines. Been using it since day one of the game.
When you mention marines you are forgetting two very important battlegrounds. Marshes and rivers, which are a huge part of the eastern front.
Hey, would you consider making a guide to navies (particularly naval invasions)? I might be missing something, but I don't see a video you've done on it since Man the Guns came out. I (like most people) usually just don't even bother building a strong navy, put divisions on my coastline. If I have to do a naval invasion, I will typically just gather all my ships to escort the units across the sea and ram through the supply area while the largest enemy fleets are repairing. But I'd be interested in learning to build an actual navy and using it to *prevent* naval invasions rather than just garrison coastlines.
Very good video. I'm just learning how to properly play and after seeing this vid I think my subs are over engineered and thus expensive.
Playing as Australia and will likely be going after Japan.
Light tank recon is cheaper and more effective than early AT company if you have the fuel for it.
That "standard issue cat" behind FB sure sleeps consistently.
Responding to that painful Artillery-heavy Mountaineer Division: I found a fun setup that works great while being easy to field; 9 Mountaineers, 2 Artillery, Engineer Company, and Artillery Company. 25-CW makes them stack perfectly in 3s on Mountains and they both attack and defend really well. In an Italy game I was able to get a 200k encirclement on the French-Italian border by using these guys to shockingly quickly encircle over the vast range of Mountains faster than anything I've ever done in the area. Just gotta make sure to always field em in sets of 3 to fully deploy on a Mountain, other wise they don't seem to work nearly as well
14:16 so i did some playtesting and i found that tacs are better than navs when it comes to killing subs. i think this is because navs use torpedos and tacs regular bombs, good luck hitting a sub with a torpedo
Speed doesn't win battles, but it does allow you to spider like old HOI4 and push for those rail lines, supply hubs and get encirclements before they can redeploy. It's not an end all, be all, but it will give you and advantage if you are able to make a breakthrough. Most notably this probably works where you are more evenly matched and can only win on one or 2 squares but with some speedy light tanks or motorized, you can overextend them and win quicker than you probably would have. It's niche but it does work.
Really this is why I think speed is underrated,sure it isn't the end all be all, it doesn't factor into battles. However speed gives a massive advantage for exploiting pushes and overall tactical positioning, an army of infantry and heavy tank doomstacks will always get outmaneuvered by mobile infantry and lighter tank forces
Mountaineers are for attacking through hills and mountains. They are specialized breakthrough divisions. Try playing democratic Raj.
I'm no expert at this game and i have no idea about the mechanics in the back ground. When i build a division, i always put things in i would want it to have in reality.
Ca 10000 men for inf. division with ca.20 combat width. And i always put a normal artillery, a normal AT company and a AA company in it.
The same with my tank divisions. Ca. 12000 men, around 20 combat width, 3 medium tanks, 5 armored infantry, 1 mobile artillery, 1 mobile AT, 1 mobile AA and of course full support.
Maybe horrible for game play, but good for my RP.
If its RP go nuts
What I'd love to know, among many other things with this game, is can you make a pure AA division, then sit it 1 space back from your front lines to take care of the CAS.
Also does it impact the bombers flying over the territory to hit the capital in another province?
Second question is can I make drag racing tanks that are all engine and no armour that out pace trucks?
Also, if I want to steal the enemy weapons does every unit need Maintenance company, or does only one unit in the stack fighting on the tile need it?
I May be wrong, but as I remember the division aa inflicts damage on cas only in battle, so as long as your aa div does not fight against enemy division it Will not inflict any damage on enemy planes. And I AM sure that div aa does not attack any units like bombers or fighters, the region aa does that.
On the second topic, Yes you can. When I play as germany I make a super fast design, that can not actually win against anything, but it is much faster, than motorised infrantry. I also add a logystic and repair companies in order to increase delay in supplies and save up some resourses, because these builds suffer in reliability. When I go to war against france i Just send a couple of these divs in opening gaps, and take paris capitulating france super easily. And since these divs have got 1-3 of these tanks I use them for snaking, cutting supply lines and inflicting pain in the ass for opposing player or AI.
I once made a 40 width Division with 2 anti air, 2 anti tank, 2 artillery and the rest infantry as the Soviet Union on Deep Battle Doctrine, incredibly fun to use but overall ineffective, you get away with it against the AI though
This game really needs corps level command.Then we could create proper breakthrough, frontline divisions under one command and fast mobile under another one in tge army.
I now that u are doing a template review but my eyes are drawn towards the cute sleeping cat on the bed
Whenever I got extra motorized laying around, I just start swapping all my infantry into motorized, makes them faster to respond.
so when the new update came out, i wanted to try and make a small division with lots of support companies that could work as an all around for fighting the ai. what i came up with was 6 infantry, support arty, support anti air, support anti tank, engineers, and support rocket arty, while stacking as much entrenchment as i could, so grand battleplan, static warfare, and the entrenchment army spirit. any thoughts on it?
Feedback is living up to his name.
At 1:13 i saw the cat stretching in the back. From that point on i dont know what the video was all about 🤣🤣
Cat : Best division is pure infantry
😑
3:20
not only dat guy managed 1000+ soft atak, but the width is 69 lol
Are you sure that going over 100% reliability on tanks is a waste? After all division reliability is averaged out and motorized/mechanized have 80% reliability so if you go over 100% with your tanks you can get the average reliability to 100% or close to it when using a lot of motorized/mechanized to boost up organization. Unless the 100% reliability is a hard cap which means it isn't transferred over to the average calculations, in which case 100% wasteful.
3:36 "we have engineer which is good for this division because its defensive" litterally called attack infantry
Don't shoot the messenger. I didn't name it badly
Signal company helps to leader to choose more effective tactics to battle imo
This guy looks so much like stylosa from Overwatch :)
Feedback: Reviewing Templates
Me: Cat
Could you do a breakdown of all of the stats of a division in the division designer menu? It would be helpful for newer players (and maybe some veterans) such as myself. I always get confused when your talk about org, piercing, armor, etc.
Org is your units endurance basically how much it can fight, pierce is its ability to fuck up armor, Armor is your ability to tank soft or hard dam.
When you have high hardness, breakthrough is redundant. AI just don't have enough hard attacks to use that many breakthrough points. Extra soft attack is always nice. On another hand attrition on 12 unit artillery can be harsh.
Am I the only one who adds amtracs and amphibious tanks to marine divisions? I used them in China once and it was so effective Japan couldn’t stop me. I would position them on rivers or jump canals with them and they couldn’t stop it. They capitulated by 1940
There are only two ship designs. Bathtubs and sub 3
Can it be effective If you make a fast Tank for your Armor Divisions and a slow Tank (on the Same chassis) for infantry?
im fairly new i dont understand why he keeps saying if you have breakthrough you dont need soft attack? i thought breakthrough keeps you attacking longer but dont you also need to do damage in that time you are attacking?
Sitting patiently waiting for an estonia video
To be fair, division templates barely matter as long as you're not using 2w or 50w divs
69 width is meta
Hey Feedback, will you ever go into the Road to 56 templates? All the extra stuff in the mod allows for really specialized divisions for almost any situation, and it makes multiplayer really interesting. I love my Jagers and deser infantry.
Yoyr Jägers and desert infantry are no match for my.... Fighter-Bomber II
well why not make an another comment. Waiting the day when we can customize Divisions to the degree that we can do tanks. loving the fact that doctrines were removed from research tree.
16:52 “look how hard this is”
i had to watch 17 minutes of this video to see that there is a cat sleeping behind him
Any plans to do a guide on the basics of designing templates?
SOON
Does the current research level of equiptment change the stats in the division designer screen or is that added later?
do change
I usually make medium tanks that are super cheap for early game
7:34 HOW DARE YOU
That's not the right finger 😝
Dave, question for you. Was doing some modding the other day and came across some textures in the la resistance dlc folder. They are skins/textures for some vehicles like the armoured cars. It's got the normal ones you'd expect like base texture, desert and winter but it also has one called elite which I have never seen in game. I even tried making a veteran division using the armoured car as the 3d model but still didn't show the texture. Any ideas what these are, cut feature maybe?
No idea. I don't work for PDX
Alright... Something got me confused... When did 26, 28 and 44 got effective? Wasn't 27, 42 and 45?
If it's between 15 and 45 the combat width it doesn't matter. Why I don't bang on about it in these videos
While mine small Greek divisions with 20 width got 40-60 organisation
The tanks I've been using have Sloped armour, Skirts & Dozers.
If your making flamers than just the dozers.
Recon tanks again with Dozers.
For infantry I've been trying
9 Infantry, 3 Artillery & 3 AA.
7:33 flipping us off again dave?
That's not the right finger 😝
"This division is so hard
I need a good cavalry division for KX Mongolia
They Should add Horse Recon
@@roboparks agreed
I apparently aim for org numbers way above the meta lol
So why the hate on field hospitals? Unless I'm missing something I'd say they're essential especially if you're playing a smaller nation like Australia or Czechoslovakia
You don't enter wars to take losses that's for the other side and there expensive
@@FeedbackIRL ideally yes, but losses are inevitable and smaller nations will feel the bite of attrition much sooner and harder than say the Soviet Union
Losses are inevitable if you're battle planning. Encirclement boyos don't have to worry about that
@@FeedbackIRL If you can complete a game of Hearts of Iron 4 without taking a single casualty I will donate $1k to the charity of your choice
(no mods/hacks/cheats etc, elite difficulty)
Lol what does a zero casualty threshold have to do with anything in HoI? Even as a minor you can take a few thousand without field hospitals but be inflicting them at a ratio of 10 to or even 20 to 1 with micro against AI, hence "not having to worry about it". Field hospitals are expensive for a minor and those resources could be put somewhere else. And majors often have plenty of manpower anyway.
Useful information. Cute cat also. It seems the formulas used in the game are just not common sense, just random setup?
Should you use 24 armor divisions in an army? Or should you mix armor and mobile infantry divisions?
I prefer separate easier to micro
I've heard this in many videos I've watched from you: You say that reliability on tanks should be really high, but pretty much always tell to get rid off maintenance companies. Why is that? Isn't it more cost effective to have tanks with 90% reliability + a lvl 2 maintenance company (hence 100% reliability)? Or do I understand something wrong with how said companies work?
I think your cat was bored 😃
catto
Logi marines are good for central africa caus lack of supply + muh river crossing bonus
I'm here wishing for templates for smal nations with not many resources/manpower.
Question,how to add 9 armor and 9 speed while HAVING 107 FRICKING RELIABILITY
Call me stupid but i ususally just put an artillery batalion than the artillery support battery(in infantry battery is company)
6:06 feedback has gone sexual o God Ahh
I was Germany and got cut in half by the Netherlands
If I see a division with 1300 breakthrough and 400 soft attack and you suggest to remove artillery, because "it has enough breakthrough", that proves you are not an expert in HOI combat :).
Trust me, vs AI, you NEVER EVER should remove support engineers and artillery, this is base of every division (along with flame tank for offensive ones). Actually if you can afford, you should have both standard and rocket arty supports.
vs AI you will never need 1000 breakthrough, unless you are trying to punch mountain forts with tanks ... , which will not work regardless, just minimizes loses.
The "sword" division from 9:50 is one of best here, it will be totally effective vs AI. The only minus is width, 33 is just no go ....
It seems ypu are the person who is not an expert in HOI. First of all support artillery is the last thing you want to put in an army with 400 soft attack and breakthrough because it gives only a little soft attack and an organization and supply debuff. It has low HP so you will loose more manpower during combat. Do you even know how breakthrough works? A division with very high soft attack and breakthrough is for shure overkill but for tank division you do not essentially need high soft attack. Only if the enemy puts full organized divisions too fast on their defensive frontline during the retreat of other divisions. Against the ai you will need 1000 breakthrough in late game games if they spam divisions to their frontline that are unbreakable with 500 breakthrough or if you have no air because of industrial reasons. You need to cancel out enemy air support, river defenses, intel advantages, etc., the debuffs during the combat. I do not know why you named a 33 combat width division a no go because they overhauled all combat widths in the 1.11 update so 5, 10, 20 and 40 are no metas more at all.
@@heinrich6294 You need to have breakthrough bigger than attack of defending units, that's it. Please show me AI divisions which have more than 500 attack while defending. As for soft attack every point of attack higher than enemy defense does 4 times more damage, if I remember good (sorry, didn't play a game for a year :) ). So you want to have higher soft attack than enemy defense and if you can achieve that every additional soft attack does a lot, so you want it even more.
Of course, you don't need that to break enemy lines. You can do it also with tanks having only 100 attack. You will eventually beat enemy org and break, but it will take much more time. Vs AI, it will usually be enough, so if you prefer, that's some way to play the game.
But if you make divisions with 400+ soft attack and 200+ breakthrough, assuming green sky, you can usually draw a line, get some popcorn, hit attack button and enjoy the show :)
So basically a division from 9:50 after removing 2 infantry and anti-air brigades. This will be almost best cost-effective anti-AI division that can be made. You can probably wield full army of those for Barbarossa as a Germany (+ some meat field infantry divisions). I bet this will win Barbarossa before 1942 on auto attack :). Try that ;)
(edit: on Barbarossa as Ger you should not need anti-air at all, but that's just a small detail)
As for 33 sized divisions, why it is no go ?, it is simple:
You will usually fight on terrain of 84 or 90 width. Not sure about your math but how do you want to fill it in with divisons of 33 ?
33x2 = 66. If 2 divisions got into fight, they will leave gap of 84-66=18 or 90-66=24. That means they will be far from effective.
33x3 = 99. If somehow 3 divisions got into fight, you will face penalty from extra 15 or 9 and it will be probably even worse situation.
Well, if you are tryhard, you can mix them with i.e. 20 size divisions and make a good use, but that requires a lot of micro management. With that, every division size is useful in this patch.
but if you are not try-harding, you need width which can fit most common battlegrounds. So 20 can still work, 21 will usually be better and 27/28 or 42 is my personal favorite for offensive one. But it all depends of course in which region you fight.
I see a kitty! Sleeping
And this is why I'm fine with not playing multiplayer lol I can make whatever divisions I want and everything still works fine lol
Have you lost weight Dave? Good on you!
Nope ha XD
No.
Yes.
@@redbasher636 No.
Maybe.
Does equipment with reliability over 100% still increase the division reliability at its nominal value? Because then it makes sense to have over 100% reliability to offset the 90% reliability of infantry equipment and 80% reliability of trucks and mechanized.
No
I miss when 7/2 were meta 😭😭😭
Motorises aa is better it gives way more air attack
I dont understand. Someone needs to explain to me why bigger divisions are better. Its been shown, i have no idea how many freaking times that smaller divisions are vastly superior. Why are people still using giant 40 widths?
you take less losses and have to produce only half the support for the same amount of combat width. If I can man all frontlines, all my divisions are 42-45 width. Otherwise sure, Ill drop to 27 or even 21
@@TheZweric Well, in tests I've done, the ic loss differences were marginal. You get double the org if you split your divisions. Why do you think you should lose less ic with bigger divisions?
@@deathdealer312 talking manpower losses. when I defend with my 45 width as netherlands against germany losses are close to 1:100 (yes, with forts) until I start counterattacking. When I do small divisions they take more supply and I lose
even in offense those infantry divisions aren't bad at all
@@TheZweric uh ok? What does that prove? Split them and youd have double the org. You dont lose more with smaller divisions. Combat power is divided now. Do a test of it if you dont believe me. I have. Ive done extensive tests.
@@TheZweric why would you go for 45 width, I've read many times that its much better to go for 10, 20 or 40, because more division can fight at once, because combat width is usually 80 or 120 etc. So why go for 45?
Rines with out Engi? What is this madness?
I fully don’t understand army templates and just use base and get demolished
I'll never know how to play this game...