There are some smaller reasons that i didnt think were big enough for the video that im going to post here: 1: Higher IC losses. The simplified formula for IC losses is organization * IC/HP. Line Artillery has higher IC and lower HP than infantry. Yes, lower organization as well, but its still an increase from infantry. 9/0 has 181.63 while 9/1 has 193.61. Therefore 9/1 has more IC losses. 2: Supply. A 9/1 consumes 7.5% more supply per width. Larger divisions usually have less supply per width due to supply companies consuming so much, so the extra 7.5% is even more than what it should be. A better example can be comparing a 9/2 with a 12/0, where the 9/2 uses 23.46% more supply. 3: Defense and Entrenchment. Line Artillery gives little to no defense, and does not help the entrenchment bonus that engineer company gives on infantry. Since infantry should for the most part hold the line, this is another disadvantage of line artillery 4: Terrain Bonuses. Line artillery has -20% attack in forests (-25% in jungle) and over river, as well as having -40% attack in amphibious. Although you wont instantly get these effects by putting artillery into your divisions, it will still have a small impact. Support artillery does not give any terrain buffs or debuffs.
Only advantage from using Line Artillery that I see is it use less manpower per combat width than Infantry. Infantry use 500/cw but artillerty use 167/cw, so if you are low manpower country you gonna have more cw to fill front line
Small addition/correction, Line artillery is benefited by entrenchment, as entrenchment multiplies both the defense and attack stats of a division, so long as it is defending. Defensive Infantry with greater attack isn't a bad thing as that means they deal greater damager to attackers and can thus hold the line more efficiently. Otherwise I agree.
I guess 9/1 has less IC losses because more soft attack means the battle ends faster. Also with this formula adding support artillery means more losses too, isn’t it? Thanks for video, sorry for my English
@@0witw047 I think you misunderstood. I agree that entrenchment does have the same effect on artillery as it has on everything else. Engineer company gives entrenchment to each additional infantry battalion in the division. What i meant is that artillery does not benefit from this same effect. If it were replaced by infantry you would have higher entrenchment.
@@Данил-т3б1и Yes, thats why organization is in the formula. Yes, support artillery increases losses. In all of my examples i include support companies so it is the most realistic.
This is what I tried telling my friends. Artillery shouldn't just increase soft attack but defense and breakthrough as well in my opinion. Besides that, artillery is an indirect fire weapon, it's not supposed to have any combat width. All in all, arty in Hoi4 is not just inefficient but unrealistic too.
Yes, totally agree. However line artillery should have some combat width. Zero would be too strong. Many mods use 1 cw, which i believe make a lot more sense
@@sumzer_0 i think this happens because the game does not give proper separation between the calibers, so a heavy arty who would be used in siege would have more combat with than a light arty used for defensive units.
Key responses - 1. Infantry have 2/3/4/5 breakthrough. Artillery has 6/7/8. T1 Arty Early into the game is incredible for attacking because of its breakthrough/width but falls off once T3 guns come into play. Breakthrough significantly reduces damage on the offensive. 2. Having a high soft attack division is important because of coordination. 35% of the damage the division does is concentrated. Having high soft attack per width means little, if a coordinated Line arty division can overwhelm defenders and do multiplied damage. Otherwise after 1939 yes line arty is trash and support artillery should be exclusively used. Motorized Arty changes the calculus again because of the +5, breakthrough buff, it becomes a choice of 3 motinf ((4to5))+5)*3=(27bto30b) vs 2 motart ((7to8)+5)*2)=(24bto26b) or in otherwords 27-30 breakthrough for 3 more motinf or 24-26 more breakthrough for 2 more motart. But these are going to be rare specialized attacking divisions that are meant to cost effectively overwhelm defenders quickly.
1. Arty early game is strong yes. So for example in china war, line artillery is useful for japan. The basic math: with 1936 tech, infantry has 3.1 breakthrough, while line artillery has 6. Adjusted for CW thats almost a 50% increase. 1939 its 4.4 and 7.0. Adjusted for CW thats 6% more breakthrough. One thing you failed to consider, is how advisors and generals impact it. Lets say 1936 tech, and only infantry expert. 9/0 vs 9/1, both with engineer and support arty. 9/0 has 36.4 breakthrough. Expert gives 15% bonus, so 36.4*1.15 = 41.86, then divided by width is 2.3255. 9/1 has 42.4 breakthrough, 13.5% bonus this time, so 42.2*1.135 = 48.124, then divided by combat width is 2.2916. So breakthrough per width is actually worse with line artillery, even early game. You could argue that artillery advisor can save this, but you likely wont get it early game, it gives less defense/breakthrough than the infantry advisor, and all of this doesnt even consider the bonus from infantry leader trait on the general. Another problem with the breakthrough argument, is that you will be critted either way. Yes, you will take less damage on the offensive, but it isnt actually that significant. Especially when its only 6%. 2. Im not sure i fully understand your point. All of your units will coordinate to the same division no matter how many divisions you have (as long as they are large enough width to target them). This means that the only thing you should worry about is the total soft attack in battle (soft attack per width) and the coordination. Another argument is that larger divisions will be better because you are less likely to be critted in a combat versus smaller divisions. While this is true in theory, in practice, infantry has a lot of defense, so with somewhat decent tech and advisors/generals you shouldnt be critted either way by enemy infantry, and you wil never have enough breakthrough to not be critted. Only exception here is special forces, but line artillery is worse with special forces, so it shouldnt be considered. The general argument with larger divisions is more important in multiplayer, where you actually will face units that will crit you both on defense and offense, but in multiplayer, you will for the most part use tanks for this role. Also you likely will have more than 35% coordination, radio gives another 4%, but it doesnt really matter for the argument. Motorized artillery is not worth considering. These "fast" motorized units are basically just infantry that costs more, with slightly more breakthrough. Tanks are just better for this role. You dont need to make them expensive either, especially not in singleplayer. Only thing motorized units really are useful for, is snaking through the enemy lines, but they dont need to be good for this, so you can make them 10w just fine. Nice to be recognized by someone as large as yourself i must say.
@@sumzer_0 - Co-ordinated attacks with 4 10 widths may not necessarily target the same division. Having a large division with high soft attack means that the probability of concentrating fire and overwhelming defense is higher. Lets pretend the targeting of co-ord is completely random and 4 10w units are fight 4 10w units. That means each unit has 4 targets, which means there a 25%*25% chance that they "concentrate" their attacks on the correct target, or in otherwords only a 6.25% chance to concentrate fire on each combat tick and overwhelm the enemies defense. Now imagine that you have 2 20w divisions attacking 4 10w divisions. The probability of attacking the right target is 25%*50% or 12.5% which is double the number of combat ticks where all co-ordinated strikes hit the same target. The actual numbers don't matter, the maths follows along that a single 40w would hit a single target 25% of the time. Halving the number of divisions in the fight reduces variance in co-ordinated strikes against a target by half which is a big deal if the co-ordinated strikes are beating defense because of the attack multiplier for beating defense. Hope that explains it, even if the actual variance is much smaller, having a higher concentration of soft attack from a division size point of view lowers the variance of strikes. Edit: I could be wrong, but I was told that co-ordinated strikes don't always hit the same target, if I am wrong then discard.
@@PotatoMcWhiskey It is slightly random yes, but only on the list of targets, not the priority target. Here is taken directly from the wiki: "The attacks are split into an uncoordinated and coordinated part. Uncoordinated attacks are spread between all targets in the engagement width according to their respective width. One selected priority target additionally receives all of the coordinated attacks, increasing the chance to overcome its defenses. [...] The priority target is chosen by: - considering how hardness affects the number of effective attacks the attacker would have against the target, with a slight bias for hard attacks - avoiding armored targets: if armor exceeds the attacker's piercing, the rating is halved - favoring low organizaton: based on the formula 100 % − org ratio / 4 " This part is not random. Assuming a division have all enemy units in their engagement width, they will focus the same unit due to the weighing. If the division does not have all enemy units in their engagement width, they might not pick the same unit, but its still far from random, and actually a very high likelyhood of still picking the same unit.
@@PotatoMcWhiskey One thing that usually gets overlooked using large divisions vs small is that smaller divisions have more stats/width, due to support companies. At extreme ends of that consideration, a 10w will have 4x as many support companies as a 40w. When your support companies are giving a significant % of stats, adding width can easily decrease the damage you do, both overall and to single targets. Superior firepower is the poster child for using low widths offensively, but it's still a lesser tradeoff in other doctrines.
I mean a game where we can bring back the Kaiser, The russian Tzar and have communist USA in the same timeline doesnt scream "100% historically accurate" to me ... this is a video game first and foremost, please try to have more constructive arguments
Also, dont forget about Rangers tech. It buffs line artillery attack by 15%, it still useless because it consumes support slot, but sometimes I play 15 width if I have an advisor.
It buffs line artillery by 20% yes, but the problem with it is that you get it pretty late (doctrine and technology-wise) that artillery is pretty weak. Artillery gets comparatively weaker overtime, so assuming you dont immediately rush the ranger bonus (which you shouldnt), then there isnt any point.
@@sumzer_0 Countries like Mexico, where their theater of operations is full of mountains (USA and South America), receive an important benefit from rush ranger bonus.
@@darkosphere3252 yk, integrated support + shock and awe is still GOOD for line artillery, u trade a little soft attack with MORE ORGANIZATION with the support companies, which makes your artillery divisions even stronger
I used to use 8/3 (infantry/artillery) And their damage would always fall off near the end of battles. This definitely helps me understand why pure infantry is often a bit better. Thank you!
On the case of technology: In-between equipment upgrades, which also inrease production cost, infantry receives a single 5% soft attack bonus, while artillery receives 3 separate 10% bonuses to soft attack. And these 10% bonuses are even more valuable due to starting value which is increased by 10% three times being much larger, than the starting value of infantry equipment soft attack. That means any percentage increases are much more valuable. Artillery is also faster to research, I don't know the exact numbers but roughly a year ahead of time the next artillery tech will cost as much as up-to-date infantry tech without any penalty
@@sumzer_0 You didn't mention non-equipment technologies in the video itself, you only compared increases between three versions of infantry equipment and three versions of artillery equipment If you did consider non-equipment increases in calculation, you didn't show that in the video example, since you only researched the first +10% artillery increase (I'm speaking of part 2 specifically) But on the point of line arty usefullness, I do agree that it becomes weaker than more infantry in lategame, when you can field more than just a few tank divisions. But early game, it is increadibly strong, especially as countries like Poland or China that can't afford a large tank production. Tho I'd never choose military doctrines that boost it, support improvements are straight up better
@@starhalv2427 This is implied in the "1939 tech" or "1942 tech" part. I did. There is only one artillery increase before 39. The next one is 1940 tech. Tank production is a very small reason to why artillery becomes weaker late game. There is no reason to why china should do line artillery. You have so much manpower you can just orgwall your way to victory.
@@sumzer_0 Okay but have you taken into account MIOs? Not only they increase soft attack, defense breakthrough reliatibility and increase production efficency, they undeniably and steadily make ART better overtime, not even considering policy of said MIO Also some countires have unique traits that also improve ART ... in case the headache wasn't strong enough
This is strange considering how important artillery was in WW2, the amount of big guns per 1 km was really scary for some armies. At this point one begins to wonder where the the money goes in Paradox. Barely any interesting new content that's much better than free mods, armor and air is just a mess, sh!tty traits system, no rebalances for atleast some historical accuracy, AI is beyond braindead, navy is just crap unfixable spaghetti code, i could go on..
Can we talk about the AI taking focuses and so changing side or joining factions randomly? Or the fact that we still have after half a decade division that can attack you going through neutral countries?
Finally I found someone who talks about the formulas that I derived independently. I wrote about them under many videos, but UA-camrs did not react at all, and here I don’t even need to write, you showed them! It’s nice to know that my calculations are correct. It’s also nice to see how generals are taken into account here, since I did not take them into account
I tried to play again just with support artillery plus and rocket support artillery instead putting the normal 9x2 template i it was indeed much better
I put your proposal to the test with a fresh game as germany. Contrary to my usual style of having lots of artillery, I reduced to support-artillery and used the free factories to build more tanks and trucks. Everything went well! Plus, My inf chewed through less equipment and used fewer supplies.
@@ultimatestuff7111 As a minor like hungary or latvia, you could potentially make ~5 tanks divisions while having ~30 12w infantries. (This, is if you rush economic focuses, which is something most should do.) It helps alot, trust.
this video absolutely blew my mind and made everything click, i play hoi4 very causally, sometimes mp but never pvp and i sometimes do a lil roleplaying like going really light or heavy on tanks or planes for example but infantry templates is always something i struggled with and this made so much sense now im gonna watch your video on infantry also immediately subscribed
Good video bro. These days while playing minors like Denmark in single player, I would put 2-3 soft attack tanks in infantry template to create a pushing template. So many great things about this: 1. cheap to design template, lower width than using artillery 2. Able to sacrifice speed whenever possible while designing tanks to maximize attack and armor 3. Less IC than motorized template 4. Less exp loss Germany's regular inf wasn't even piercing me. Only problem is no hard attack, but in base game Germany makes like 5 tanks total so it's not a problem.
the way I learned line arty sucks was by playing 30 min of hell Poland. After you get the achievement and start to push germany, you can push easily even though you dont have artillery. it made me see that I just dont need that extra production cost in my divisions.
infantry + artillery divisions are popular in singleplayer because they're easy to make by any country, easy to keep supplied and have reasonable allrounder combat stats for rather cheap which allows you to produce fighters and support planes (cas or tac bombers, it doesn't really matter) aka things that in singleplayer actively win wars¨ they're not "overrated" at all, using specific multiplayer divisions as an example as to why 9/1 is "bad" is a joke because realistically in singleplayer there's 0 usecase for 16 width pure infantry with logi+antitank or gigantic marine infantry divisions with airdrop LTs and med flamers like yeah in multiplayer they're kind of bad because they don't actually do much when compared to specialized pure defense infantry or pure attack spec forces/tank+mech divisions but multiplayer meta is completely different to singleplayer meta where you as a player have to often carry entire factions of braindead AI in which situation you can't actually divide responsibilities and have countries set up their industry to favour a specific branch or strategy like you can in multiplayer edit: also comparing arty to tanks is comical, tanks cost army xp to even set up, require a ludicrous amount of even more army xp to get a template that's not terrible, require a ton more research, eat fuel like crazy and take ages to get their production lines running up to a scale where you're not essentially just devoting mils to an IC black hole and are actually getting enough daily tanks to start producing worthwhile divisions like i don't think you understand that line artillery isn't some sort of an end-all be-all solution to problems but a cheap stopgap that allows you to outfit your infantry divisions with an ability to actually deal some amount of meaningful damage in the early to midgame
This first point is the exact reason to why you shouldnt do line artillery. They are harder to keep supplied, and cost a lot of IC that couldve been spent on exactly planes. I dont see your point. My point with the 16w isnt to show what you should do, but argue why line artillery would be a bad idea. I think you overestimate the difference between singleplayer and multiplayer meta. The only real difference is the amount of soft vs hard attack needed. Again, total exaggeration. It requires barely more army xp. Since its only one battalion per division you should not have major issues with producing them. Artillery is pretty good in the early to mid-game yes, but the problem is after that. There isnt really any point to having line artillery after 1940, because everything else is so much better.
@@sumzer_0 I mean i never really see people rely much on arty after 1940 so by your own logic if it's pretty good during early and midgame then it is in fact pretty good overall. Simply because as almost any nation in any mod to actually play the game in late game single player you need good tanks and and/or an obscine amount of cas. And at that point there is no viable difference in how your average grunt division is composed
@@Warcrimy Line artillery isnt good midgame, and is only viable early game. This is basically 36-38. Most wars dont happen in this timespan. No, its not good overall. If there is no difference in how the average infantry is, then you definitely dont need to waste any IC on artillery. Its much better spent in the things you mention like planes and tanks.
space marines also could have line artillery,i just can't understand. dose line artillery just mean things like 9/3or infantry with line artillery.11/4with 1tank is cheapest way to push ai in single player game
@@sumzer_0 I am not convinced by line arty as an option even in those really early wars. I think making it could cost you the game in SP as Austria if you just turn down Germany and fight them. Ethiopia is happy to get enough factories to put SUPPORT artillery on its divisions. Not many other nations fighting on constrained fronts that early. You can make a case for Japan, but they can get armor bonus using even their starting templates unless China invests in more pen.
I've come to the same conclusion, the only things I add now is towed anti-air. The combat width is preposterous and organisation loss is not worth the stats it gives.
Video was extremely helpful. I have over 400 hours and didn't know alot of this. Definitely going to use less line art and more mechanical vehicles. Loved it
Agreed, though Pdox does not agree with us. They explicitly nerfed it in the WTT patch years ago. Prior to that, it did 30% more damage, and 14/4 was actually a legitimate composition for offensives. The last time 7/2 or 14/4 were actually a good choice, in fact. As you say, this flies in the face of actual equipment performance in both world wars, where artillery was the leader in both.
Frankly as a SP player ... the meta's fucking pointless like ... who cares if you waste IC on heavy tank, you're still going to crush Germany as the USA lol
Really good video well explained I would like to add two things to it as someone who plays meta games 1. HP is one of the most important stats as with higher HP you can use Commander abilities( force attack/ last stand)better and longer without losing the division Without those abilities you would never land a dday in a meta game as you would just deorganise to fast 2. We once made a separate mod were arty was 2 combat witdh instead of 3 still no one used it as it is still to bad to compete with gun 2 and 3 line inf The only one really using arty in an meta game is japan vs china (ai)
@@sgtburden8482 the video is about MP META templates (check intro) ; with "in a meta game" it always implicates MP and "we"(as in we = meta players) should also tell you i am talking about MP ;the first one is general and counts for both SP and MP so it wouldnt even matter as the combat itself (unless changed and touched by mods)stays the same and therefore the tipp is for both
@@nausimur6035 "Meta game" is too ambigious to know for sure Also since MP is usually with mods reworking game mechanics for balance including combat width, I think it's a bit strange to say something is good / bad since every MP has its own sets of mods and is rarely pure vanilla
@@sgtburden8482 i said the term " meta game " imply MP game not Meta as a standalone word ; and yes the words meaning has been inflated by people using it wrong and overusing it same goes for the word overpowered and still why would i specify something that counts for both SP and MP as High HP in divs is important in hoi and arty is just really bad because of its 3 combat witdh it is part of the game ; a chess piece doesnt move different for a GM than to a new player
Any battalion type can be either overused or underused. I remember some years ago in Hearts of Iron 4 when one of the game start division templates that the United Kingdom used to have was 4 infantry battalions plus 4 artillery battalions, for a total of 20 Combat Width. The United Kingdom doesn't have that as one of its game start division designs anymore. 4 artillery battalions is normally too much in a division design anyway, but it made one think about just what situations a towed artillery battalion could be advantageous for. A towed artillery battalion does has some advantages that can be occasionally considered. 1. Good Soft Attack per 100 Manpower. 2. Zero fuel usage. 3. Excellent Soft Attack per Supply Usage. 4. A way to add 3 Combat Width when terrain or else enemy Combat Width makes having 3 more Combat Width advantageous. 5. A fair amount of Soft Attack per Combat Width. 6. Good Defense per 100 Manpower. Since so many battalion types have a Combat Width of 2, meaning that an intermediate division design for Switzerland could easily be 22 Combat Width, I could definitely understand a Switzerland player adding towed artillery to bring Combat Width of such an intermediate division design from 22 to 25 - just the right Combat Width to defend some mountain tile. Also, there can be situations where both a towed anti-air battalion and a towed anti-tank battalion are needed. A towed artillery battalion can help balance out the resulting addition of Air Attack and Hard Attack with some Soft Attack that is supply-frugal and manpower-frugal and fuel-frugal. Short version: There are some situations when having a towed artillery battalion is useful. Sometimes, such a situation is temporary while waiting for a clearly better tech to be produced, but sometimes a towed artillery battalion is a good enough choice that it should be left in place.
Soft attack per manpower and soft attack per supply use really useless metrics. If you replaced soft attack with maximum damage it would become better. A lot of people overestimate the impact of combat width. In mountains, you dont actually need 25w, as 26w works perfectly fine. There is no need "balancing out" hard attack or air attack. That isnt how the game works. Because of the org hit you probably need more infantry, not less.
Yeah, even when defending in mountains, or when defending against a river crossing, or when defending against a sea invasion, or even when you have a division that has high Hardness and Armor stats, you need at least 125 HP. The 100 HP in that former United Kingdom game start artillery division template simply wasn't enough even in fairly commonplace good defensive terrain situations to avoid combat losses to division experience. Unless you are in an unusual niche situation like defending a river crossing in a level 10 mountain fort, 100 HP simply isn't enough when fighting a 1st class army. Even 125 HP is risky for being too low of a division HP to retain experience, but some low population countries don't have a choice to go higher in HP, and also even higher population countries get in situations of trying to avoid the production hit from going to a 10% or 20% conscription law.
@@sumzer_0 It seems like back in the day before WTT, support artillery cost 24 rather than 12 pieces, line artillery was still 36, and line artillery was 30% more damaging. That was probably the last time it was justifiable to use it, since advanced arty would give 20 base SA/w before doctrines were applied, roughly. Pdox hated the idea of the most lethal weapon in the war being used a lot, nerfed it into the floor, while making support artillery half cost for some reason. Edit: SPG was also similarly nerfed, which is also why it sucks now. Imagine if you got 30% more base damage out of it, people might actually use it!
"this meta template doesn't have artillery because artillery is overrated" *shows a tank template* no fucking shit there's no line artillery in a tank division
Also seeing the amount of AT, this is MP templates divisions which are completly irrelevant for SP players The amount of poeple trying to argue over MP / SP without realising they are two completly different UNIVERSES is extremely annoying
So line art contrubution is negligible by most if not all scenarios? Fun because from what i've learned from your vids, i found interesting success on adding just one line art for offensive units in early game, i surely dropped line art from templates after 1938-39, but the premise stands. All of that in singleplayer ofc. Before answering, please consider that i only have barely over 150 hours played mostly in regular diff, be gentle :D You've been cooking great stuff in this channel!
Yes, you are correct. 9/1 is viable in some situations, but generally, there isnt much point in doing any line artillery at all. I believe you have an amazing understanding of the game for someone who only has 150 hours, so good job!
@@sumzer_0 To be fair, I was somewhat forced to absorb so much information to reach a basic level compared to a friend who wanted me to play with him in coop, and i surely expect some versus games. He has over 3k hours played, and I feel like I've almost trained myself to play Hearts of Iron, but at least it's working to a minimun hahaha. Cheers, and keep up the good work!
Very good vid, man! Don't stop with the hoi4 content. I can see you and your channel growing a lot because of the quality and direct flow of information. Keep it up bro
In all my games I put so much industry in artillery, because I played alot with 9/3 or 14/4 Divisions, moutaineers and marines also with artillery. If I need much less artilerry it will change everything.
the real, fast, awnsere is that hoi 4 (beeing a ww2 game and all) is focus aroun d mechanised infantry, Combined arms divisions and air. While in reality artillers was still very much effective and important, a surprisingly high amount of tank kills are due to artillery destroying tanks which the infantry demobilised, the main focus is basicly on german,soviet and usa army developments. Which where primarily focused on mechanising there forces, as well as tanks and armor variants. That beeing saied if you ever find the time to I would relay like to see a similar analysis like this one but with spg's and Tank destroyers. basicly if a 9/1 mecha/spg or a 9/3 mecha/spg have the same problems a 9/1 Inf/arty and a 9/3 inf/arty have.
I bet all those meta players have green air with lots of cas that is responsible for doing all the damage. If you can't get green air, you NEED a way to do damage. Pure inf standing there and taking hits is good for SU or China which can afford manpower losses of prolonged fights. Smaller countries simply cannot afford to use org walls to defend themselves or build tons of air/cas for attack. Line art is needed to end fights faster, so they take less damage from attacks and enemy cas. It's simply a cheap source of soft attack and damage compared to everything else. Finally, inf2 and inf3 are bad. Expensive in IC and resources, come too late for 1939 wars, and you need so many of them it's not even funny. They are good for countries that come late into the war and can rush the tech before starting to build them.
For MP, not really. Assuming minor(cuz you NEED to win the air fight as a major), your job is not to make arty. But instead, you spam tanks and let majors fill front. If majors don't, fill front with extensively defensive divisions. Which, obviously makes arty less reliable. For SP, no also. You can just sit behind a river line or build some forts in red air and still grind kills. Easily 1/10 trade. After that their divisions have little strength and are cooked. Inf2 and Inf3 are only bad when you have no time to build up prod. eff. Just make 2 lines with former and current inf techs
a really important point is: how long u hold the line vs a superior enemy, like tanks. pure low width inf (with some supply batts) will hold far longer than inf+line arty. in this time, u can rotate inf, bring your own tanks into position to make encirclements/counter their encirclements. so, russian default inf is the best i think. 9inf+support arty. some line arty only helps at beating back enemy soft attack attacks, which isnt important at mp, because main job is done by tanks there.
I'm sorry to be _that_ guy but could you prove it in-game? Because considering : -Doctrines -Terrain -Template -Tank Design -MIOs -Tech -Generals -Supply -National Spirits (Looking at you Germany) Your statement can be complete bullshit or 60-80% true
I like the Vic 2 system where if your artillery is behind your front line it gets big bonuses. So you could have up to half be artillery in an infantry division and for each battalion get a big soft attack bonus, at the cost of greater ic and combat width
The other things i noticed between those divisions: -2 have engineers, and a third has Pioneers, which are just engineers for Marines -some of them have Field Hospitals now
Field Hospitals = More HP which is *_meta_* for MP If you play SP tho, don't bother, as long as you win, do whatever you want ... or don't win at all and just throw millions of men to die pointlessly against china
I have 800 hours on this game and always put artillery in my battalions... crazy to see this now. Its also like every guide suggests to take some artillery and lots of big content creates like bitt3rsteel for example. I cant believe it actually being somewhat worse than just not having it thanks for the education.
I think line artillery is fine for countries with really low manpower. You get a good ratio of manpower to soft attack damage. So while its less efficient per combat width, it's more efficient man power to damage ratio. You dont risk encountering overcrowding effects when you're using a 9/2 24 width in Onega holding back the Soviets from pushing into Norway.
I find the main use I have for artillery is a few purpose-built 25-width 8/3 mountaineers, since mountaineers are limited and almost everything else has so many penalties in the mountains
@@epicarcher999 no, this is basically the opposite of your goals. As you said yourself, everything except mountaineers have huge penalties in mountains. This includes artillery. As i said in my video, special forces are even worse with artillery than normal infantry is. Special forces has higher attack than infantry, so artillery does less. Mountaineers should be 13/0.
That's certainly what it's felt like for me since the last major update at least. Didn't do any math, but just building infantry with line artillery isn't enough to just battleplan-steamroll the AI anymore, artillery definitely got a big nerf. building high-org-low-atk holding divisions AND dedicated ultra-high-atk units seems to be a must now.
Early artillery has a niche though. It's good for Japan when attacking China, but only 9/1s. They're reasonably cheap, and combo well with cavalry recon and ground support CAS. Basically, they're cost-effective early on for somebody who isn't rich but needs to go to war early.
Support artillery is obscenely good though. 10w infantry with support artillery, light-tank recon with tanks optimized for soft attack and breakthrough, together with air superiority and superior firepower doctrine is by far the best way to fight in bad terrain, excepting special forces which should also be 10w. You need to micro them, however, because they have low HP and take a lot of casualties if you battleplan.
Hey, I see you have great knowledge of the game mechanics and even do math calculations. You should make an attacking division tierlist, I think it'd be really helpful :)
@@arankoka SP / MP ? You can't just drop "TONK STRONK, INF NOT STRONK" and just not specify if that's SP or MP In SP the ai is dumb enough that mass Inf with CAS works fine
couple of questions: is using line artillery research effective? 1934 arty is usually already researched and even light tanks need around 4-5 techs. is arty worth it in early wars or is pure infantry better? Are the Mountain Artillery/ Blowtorch and Corkscrew special forces doctrines useful? can support arty make special forces templates better without needing Special Forces Cap? how useful is soft attack anyways if you have cas?
Depends. Artillery is actually worth it in the early wars, but the problem is that basically the second you get guns 2, you shouldnt do line artilllery anymore. It is probably more efficient to produce other stuff at the start, and start producing for example tanks when you can, than you start with artillery, just to remove them after a bit. Not really. Mountain artillery is decent for buffing line artillery, but the problem is that you get it so late. It costs around 240 xp to get, which means you should prioritize doctrine first, and that you likely get it pretty late in the game, when line artillery is the worst. Blowtorch and Corkscrew is just bad, because 2 org is next to nothing. Yes. Support artillery and support rocket artillery are really good at increasing soft attack without much downside. Its still useful. It also depends, if your opponent has no air, and no AA, you really only need CAS to win. Otherwise you would actual stats.
@@sumzer_0 Hold on a second, 240 xp for the mountaineers ART buff? I'm pretty you could get that before guns 2 with good early conquest ... or some spanish xp farming and attaché to china / japan
Ok, great video but there appears to be a huge oversight in your analysis - what about if you’re not primarily limited by combat width but by manpower? Line Arty delivers TEN TIMES the Soft attack per manpower, and so many nations are primarily constrained by manpower(and lack the IC/research slots, so air or any usable tank division is basically punted until 1940). This is of course from a single player, mostly “difficult AF achievement as minor nation” perspective
This isnt an oversight at all. Manpower issues are much easier to get around than IC issues are. IC is, and will always be the most important thing in hoi4 to optimize. If you really do struggle with manpower that much, tanks are much better. Even something as space marines could work if you think you are limited. There are no countries that are incapable of doing the necessary research required for a decent tank division. Also, SA per manpower is a really bad metric. Max damage per manpower, or manpower losses are probably a lot better, and more accurate.
I do both, stack line arty in a GBP SPAA space marines division with a +20% SA from Rangers etc. I find manpower issues more debilitating than equipment by far. You have so many ways of getting equipment, lend lease, international market, capitulation etc - manpower is much more difficult to come by. Again, this is coming from someone who just had to do achievement runs with Norway, Ethiopia, Iceland, Mexico, Switzerland etc., by the time I have excess manpower I’ve basically already won, it’s in the beginning when it’s make or break that you need to be able to push with no manpower.
To put it another way, a 10k infantry division will have like 60 base damage and won’t push shit… swap 3 inf for 3 arty and you not only can make more divisions but they’ll actually crit and allow you to push. Add an SPAA and you can battle plan through literally anything the AI will throw at you, green air be damned (although it does help)
@@sumzer_0Mexico for example has literally 2 research slots, and you need to conquer Portugal and Spain real quick to get manpower, to knock out the allies, to bully Stalin, and then conquer the USA. You’re not doing that, and the amphibious landings necessary for basically every achievement with tanks.
@@JDothan No. Manpower is simply a smaller issue. Even with rangers that give +20% SA, its not enough. By that point in the game you have so good tech that artillery is even worse. Special forces and tanks are much more effective if you lack manpower.
I would say it's worth it considering the soft attack because of Rangers which give a boost to line artillery... The optimal template to me equipement to soft attack is ranger +artillery + rocket artillery
I used to think so until recently when I had another Japan game. After a bad one I swapped to superior firepower and a lot of line artillery, just like how I used to dominate waking the tiger and man the gun MP matches and guess what happened? Killed China on very hard AI during 1937. Old meta is still strong, hpwever there is a case to be made and especially on the eastern front I think artillery on all units is suboptimal. However I do like line artillery as gap filleers behind tanks.
Those inf templates are "meta" based on tank divisions and reinforce rate (hence mass mob titles), not based on what's most effective in any other scenario or even META combat width (10/15/30/35 when maxed), hence sup AT and supply somehow making any sense. There's a land combat guide on steam, which coincides with ur excel, that 4:1 inf to line art is the max for any doctrine, where closer to 6:1 is more desirable for def. templates. The age of 7/2 and 14/4 is certainly long over, but honestly working a line AT and some line art works against that barb inf@30/35W. Since the meta for AA is the first tech, u can't pierce light tank recon built against that asia template (about 200~240IC extra is all). U would have to add AT to counter this. But u get bullied for taking SF doctrine, so no META counter, just more tanks and garb inf to cover encirclement losses.
I dont think i understand. There is no hard meta combat width, especially 15w and 30w which you list. I dont know if i understand the rest. Are you arguing that you should do other stuff, that you should do what im saying?
@@sumzer_0 I'm addressing multiple points, sry. 1, Why no line art in meta? The meta of no line art developed as a result of the minimum u can get away with cost of divs to stall ur enemies encirclements, so more IC can be put into YOUR encirclement efforts, not any other reason. So stats don't matter, just cost to stall assuming u lose the div. Thats why mass mob is used, it gives the worst stats to inf/art compared to SF or GB, but gives reinforce rate, which helps slow down encirclements and replace inf losses. 2, If 1 isn't true, then cost/stats matters. You brought up stats per combat width (CW) as an argument to why line art is bad. Overstacking penalty then should also be considered, where the CWs I mentioned result in the lowest overstacking penalties. If u say, this isn't an issue, then IC or stats/CW is not a factor, as u never max ur width. Look up "Reserves" section to see what i mean about combat width, it affects reinforce rate, which again is why CW is not maxed. 3, If CW is maxed, I mean to agree on then, that line art added over the ratio mentioned, does affect org/losses more than the benefit of soft attack added. 9/1 vs 9/2 is not a real comparison, but combat success of (5)9/1s vs (3)12/2s or (6)6/1s on a 60(+30) forest tile is. Or even (7)6/1's or (3)12/2's against (5)9/1's in a 70(+35) plains. In summary, any analysis of stats/CW, cost/CW, or cost/stats are not factors as to why line art is not part of the meta. Its that ur inf is designed to stall tanks and then get encircled, not to fight efficiently or effectively.
@@HeartofCobalt Im not sure if you are agreeing with me or not. As long as you can guarantee to fill combat width, and your goal is the most stats, then max damage per width is the best metric. If you cant fill combat width, then the formula i presented in the video (org*SA/IC^2) is the best. Either way, both of these formulas generally support the argument of no line artillery, especially the last one.
@@sumzer_0 I half agree with your argument, that because of the meta, line art makes no sense. Going from 9/0 to 9/3, does take terrain into account, so of course anything over 9/1 is worse (because it has more then 6:1 ratio). Plug into excel; 12/2 is better than 9/3, 6/1 is better than 9/2. If you look at other combinations the data will show that adding line art is better DEPENDING on inf/art RATIO. both 6/1 and 12/2 have more art than 9/1, and are better at MAX CW. Yes, they are worse at less than max combat width using your formula, but it is not difficult/expensive to max combat width for 6/1 and 12/2's. If you replace 9/2 and 9/3 with 6/1 and 12/2 in your excel, you will get much better values.
Question: in the 6/0 template, why use motorized recon? I get maximizing the soft attack, but cavalry recon is cheaper and uses no fuel, while giving the same soft attack. Also, I get that logistics companies are just always good to have (especially when using fuel), but seeing how you're using an infantry division to push, wouldn't field hospitals make more sense for the hp bonus and xp retention? That and 6/0 divs won't be particularly supply hungry anyway, even stacked, right? Also that same template, what about flame tanks? I thought they were pretty much always worth it in attack divisions. Also on the topic of cheap assault divisions, while mechanized does seem way too pricey for non-tank divisions, is motorized ever worth it? Like for example, the 6/0 just with motorized instead of regular inf (this time the motorized recon making much more sense). Extra breakthrough, speed and a smidge of hardness for some terrain penalties and higher IC. I'm asking these questions from an SP perspective, though MP is always interesting to hear about as well.
Hi, I already saw a video of another guy telling this very same stuff and I stopped using line artillery. However in harder scenarios than basic vanilla, I keep getting stuck because it looks that my divisions are too weak for attacking, and not every nation has the industry to spam tanks or airforce in sufficient quantities. Instead I see a lot of those famous youtubers that play disaster saves in which they just delete all the production queue but infantry equipment, artillery and AA and smash the AI with 9/3s or mountaineers 9/3. What do you think about this issue?
I think what you need is to learn some new division designs. Later in this video i show some examples, but ill quickly list them here: - 6/0 infantry division with support rocket- and normal artillery (remember to use SFP) - Space marine, 9 infantry and 1 medium tank. - Try your best at getting tanks. Just 2-4 can do amazing work for you. - Special Forces can also help you a lot. Remember to get all of the bonuses for them as well. These YTers dont know as much as you think. I dont want to be cocky, but i know that youtubers like feedback and bittersteel get a lot more credit than they deserve. Yes, they understand singleplayer a lot, but they dont actually optimize the gameplay as much as youd think. If you talk to some proper sweaty meta players, they will laugh at you if you say that these YTers are good at hoi4. Never use line artillery with special forces. Its just not worth it. Just stack your bonuses and you will be fine.
Great video! Your last 3 videos have convinced me entirely to start using support Artillery and AA instead of line for the most part. For multi-player, what main line infantry template do you recommend for France to maximize casualties inflicted on the German player? I'm thinking 10 infantry, support AA, support Artillery, engineers, and field hospitals, with heavy focus for production on fighters and CAS to actually deal the damage on attacking spearheads, but I feel like a total noob in multi-player for France.
Good to hear. In multiplayer, you usually do probably mass assault infantry. 10 infantry, support aa, support arty, engineers, and I think support anti tank would be more important. Otherwise pretty close. You dont have enough factories to produce enough air. If you do, you are probably building too much on mainland france (you should only build up the colonies you get as free france). Again, if its not a tryhard multiplayer lobby you can probably get away with air.
@@sumzer_0 thanks for the reply! What would be considered a good performance for France? Is it feasible for a skilled France with decent British help to stall Barb to early 1942, or is that just way too optimistic?
@@Glamerth If its an equally good france and germany, then being able to stall until early-mid 1940 is really good. Further than that, the game would just be over.
@@bloodwynn i never recommended 9/3. i showed a 12/3, but talked about how it isnt worth it later in the game. For mountaineers, i only believe i showed a 13/0, but im certain thats the only division ive recommended for mountaineers.
Regarding marines w art, the main issue is usually special forces cap so makes sense to me to fill out regiments with art which is alrdy in production at game start. Tho I agree re tanks once they're available. Any thoughts on mountaineers with rangers and art tho? Art easily allow the 25w and rangers give line art bonuses. When combined with medium flame seem to do great work thru the Alps in my SP experience.
That is a very real issue. The problem is that adding line artillery just makes it worse. For marines its even worse, since artillery literally gives a debuff to amphibious attacks. Getting exactly 25w isnt as important as you might think. The meta is actually 26 and all the way up towards 32w. The bonus rangers give to line artillery is nice, but you would get it pretty late in the game (both doctrine and technology-wise) that artillery is relatively worse than almost everything else. I'd believe you would be surprised by how good it will do if you started putting the artillery research on rushing better guns, and using pure-mountaineer divisions.
@@sumzer_0imo, rangers works far better with tanks as it reduces terrain penalties. Heck, put it with a flame tank and you can have a tank division with +5% attack on mountains
@@guyincognito3199 Mountains have 50w + 25w, which means that 26w basically fit perfectly. In multiplayer, you rely a bit more on HP for force attacking, so the extra HP you get from increasing it will help in certain circumstances. You will also take some more combat width penalties from this, but not as much as the increase in HP. If you go over 33w it no longer "fits" into the terrain, meaning you can only get 1 division in each battle (instead of 2). Its a bunch of theory, and not needed for singleplayer.
@@3dcomrade Rangers cap your tank division's speed at 6.4 kilometers per hour though iirc, so that's a big disadvantage in my opinion. Unless you're using slow, heavy tank behemoths obviously
This is why I use rocket artillery instead, so that I not only am dumb but I seem dumb as well Also slightly unrelated, what do you think about cavalry? I personally found it extremely useful during communist china playthroughs but I want to know if you have any suggestions
Very smart. Cavalry is bad. Its basically equal to infantry at the start, but cavalry gets next to no bonuses from doctrine. Bicycle infantry is like a better version of cavalry, but you should probably disable support equipment if youre gonna do bicycles.
If you play different games (like Steel Division 2), armored cars are legitimately useful and can even be used for some "cheese" strats. They are just a beginner trap in HOI 4 sadly.
Arty is pretty useless in MP if you play in europe, but it is pretty useful in China war since space marines are banned, and generaly it can be paired very good with GBP and green air, but when tanks comes in with 5k Breakthrough and 2k Soft and hard Attack infantry just dies anyhow which does make it a bit sad.
1. makes no sense to ban space marines. They can be countered cheaply by adding AA. They can be allowed. 2. china is low supply environment, and arty eats supply as fuck. inf is way more supply efficient.
Some countries do get special artillery bonusses esoecually when paired with rangers. You also shouldnt only use one template so artillery in divisions do have its use on some sectors.
Im going to copy from another comment: "It buffs line artillery by 20% yes, but the problem with it is that you get it pretty late (doctrine and technology-wise) that artillery is pretty weak. Artillery gets comparatively weaker overtime, so assuming you dont immediately rush the ranger bonus (which you shouldnt), then there isnt any point." Line artillery is generally a bad idea. If you want to specialize, there are so many other alternatives.
Hey, great video. Was wondering if the tank template you showeded at the bottom right of your intro segment was made in vannila? what doctrine was it made with and how could I recreate the tank? 740 hard with 450 soft and 900 break doesnt seem possible to me in vannila with medium TDS. Can get similiar hard atack going with fixed structure and putting heavy guns on it but then how do you get such high breakthrough? also I noticed that the cost of the template is pretty cheap.
Its vanilla yes. It uses GBP (i believe), so it would have similar base stats as without doctrine. Its definitely possible. You shouldnt use fixed structure. You only need HV2. The reason its so cheap is easy maintenance and MIO.
@@sumzer_0 Thanks for the quick reply, now I was able to recreate the stats in template so thank you.Moreover I've heard going for SP doctrine for tanks could be better, or is GBP the better choice? What about soviet doctrine or is this tank not viable for the soviet side?
Support artillery is significantly better than line artillery. Your infantry should be pretty cheap, so there is no point in having a ton of support companies either way.
@@sumzer_0 I like having AT, AA, Field Hospitals, Engineer Companies and what ever else I can squeeze in. Having Line artillery allows me to make a good 21width. Last game I went with 28 but that was because I was playing Red world and All that matters is Health, Org, and how much damage you do in that mod.
One battalion of line artillery does make your infantry division for the most part better. The problem is that the extra cost of putting in that line artillery could be used on other stuff that is way more effective than that line artillery is (like tanks or air).
These mods are multiplayer competitive mods, so they arent that fun in singleplayer. Some mods that have balanced artillery (IMO): LW, TFB, (Horst, Oak) and more.
i keep hearing the same thing from good players but so far adding a lot of artiliery is the best way for me to attack enemies in shit infra/terrain/supply, like south american jungle or africa. adding tanks to inf wouldnt be better there would it?? also what is best div for attack in ^^ said regions
There are a lot of alternatives. Remember that artillery also uses a lot of supply. Tanks are actually still viable, but you would probably need flame tank, and maybe even rangers as well. Special forces is probably a good idea. There are a lot of rivers as well as jungles in south america. In the marine doctrine you can get a really good bonus to jungles to your pioneers, which can help.
Maximum damage is organization * soft attack. Adding more line artillery will in most cases decrease organization more than it increases soft attack (in the formula), causing the maximum to go down, even though the soft attack goes up. You can try playing around with the numbers and coming to your own conclusions if you want.
Thats a fair point yes, but its actually not as impactful as the cost of artillery. I'll copy my response from another comment: "Manpower issues are much easier to get around than IC issues are. IC is, and will always be the most important thing in hoi4 to optimize. If you really do struggle with manpower that much, tanks are much better. Even something as space marines could work if you think you are limited. There are no countries that are incapable of doing the necessary research required for a decent tank division."
you forgot the supp bat Ranger. In my opinion line art. scales alot better whit rangers and shoud only be playwhit it. it gives massive softattack bonuses for art. that makes it op. unlock 4x60 army exp in the special forces line and you will see what i mean :)
Ill copy what i wrote in another comment: "It buffs line artillery by 20% yes, but the problem with it is that you get it pretty late (doctrine and technology-wise) that artillery is pretty weak. Artillery gets comparatively weaker overtime, so assuming you dont immediately rush the ranger bonus (which you shouldnt), then there isnt any point." Also as you said yourself, 4*60xp. That is a lot, almost three doctrine.
Ok there are a lot of issues with your analysis: - Line artillery gets a 30% attack bonus from techs by 1941, while inf only gets 10% and armor gets zero. - Line artillery can have its SA boosted further by recon/rangers by 10%, armor cannot - Line artillery has no penalties in harsh terrain, which is especially relevant with rivers - Line artillery requires zero fuel - Line artillery effectively requires no research, as you need to research artillery for tank guns and support artillery anyway - Higher total damage per width is not the only thing that matters. The benefit of line artillery is they dish out their damage quickly, which means that you can punch through enemy lines before they reinforce, decreasing the total number of enemy divisions you have to fight - Line artillery is still 3 times cheaper than your "cheap infantry tank" per battalion. Keep in mind that you only need 36 artillery per battalion versus 50 medium tanks. - Line artillery on defense will crit enemy attacking units due to twice the damage per width versus infantry. Damage over enemy breakthrough is worth 4x as much as other damage so your divisions will be devastating to the enemy. - Due to how organization is calculated, 2 line artillery battalions does not hurt your organization as much as 3 tank battalions, so artillery is comparatively friendlier to allowing your infantry units to remain combat effective even if you add a lot of them. In my mind 6 inf + 2 line artillery + 1 support artillery, with rangers, flame tank and engineer support is the optimal division for absolutely dominating enemy lines on the cheap. They push through everything including mountains and rivers.
Ok, lets do this point by point. - All of these bonuses are considered in my calculations. So it doesnt really matter. - All of my templates have recon. Armor is still significantly better lmao - This is just wrong. Line artillery has debuffs in forests and jungles, as well as rivers. - Ok? - This is the opposite of what you said previously with the bonuses to artillery. Tank research is slightly more yes, but still worth it. - As said in the video, there are problems with this as well. You yourself will lose battles as well. Total damage per width is the best way to calculate stats. Of course there are other metrics that help, but none that can fully replace it. - My example i compare 1 medium tank battalion versus 3 artillery battalions. And i argue why its still better. - On defense you will crit either way. Dont see your point. - again, i never argued for 3 tank battalions. Dont know where you got this from. - 6/2 is an insane ratio, and will cost you a lot of losses. I have tested this before (and won against other people), but its still really bad.
- Higher total damage per width is what "dishes out damage" quickly. Adding line arty will often not add SA/w or even decrease it, which does the exact opposite of what you say. 6/0 with support companies perform better offensively using superior firepower than any infantry comp of larger width using artillery using superior firepower. You might not like that. You might realistically conclude it's stupid or ahistorical. I would agree with that, even. But it doesn't change the reality of HOI 4. - Artillery do, in fact, have terrain penalties relative to infantry. - Infantry divisions crit attacking infantry divisions in most cases regardless of line artillery. - Real divisions use support companies, which penalizes line artillery.
@@TheMelnTeam The problem is that small divisions don't play well with percentage bonuses such as the one from flame tanks and rangers, which are absolutely broken overpowered to the point of being essential for any kind of optimized infantry build. Firepower across rivers and in bad terrain is what matters the most, and flame tanks alone literally make your divisions 40-50% stronger attacking over river into mountains (remember, "10%" river/mountain attack actually increases it by ~20% because of the low base percentage), all for the cost of 1 steel and some oil and barely more IC than a support artillery battalion, so it is absurd to contemplate not using them- unless of course, you're fighting somewhere where your divs will run out of fuel. To get good SA on such big divisions you need line artillery. Don't get me wrong, giant 10w or even 9w/8w stacks with superior firepower are basically optimal for defending due to their ridiculous org, but bigger divisions with GBP and percentage bonuses are stronger on the attack. Also smaller divisions level generals slower. You can get some ridiculously powerful generals by grinding on the enemy lines with 24 big divisions of ~35 width each.
@@sumzer_0 Hold on ... since when do we care about combat width? If you're going to argue that 24 width is SUPERIOR to 14 width because it's 3% more cost efficient I don't even see why we should even bother in the first place? Even without mass assault reducing Inf combat width, there always was (and still is I think) a reasonable argument that focusing intensly on combat width was pointless because the debate between big chonky and small tiny unit was always focus on width and NOT on IC ratio Seriously why does no one compares the stats through an IC ratio?
The translation is not the best, but i will try my best in responding properly. I dont see why it should be a goal to fit less units in each battle. It makes it more simple yes, but if you lose out on stats there shouldnt be any point. Adding line artillery increases IC losses as i pointed out in the pinned comment. Planning bonus, as all attack bonuses, will increase the max damage by the same amount no matter the attack value. 10 organization * 40 soft attack and 40 organization * 10 soft attack, both increase by the same amount when soft attack is multiplied by for example 20%. Artillery costs more IC, which could be used other places. Manpower is generally easier to get around than IC is. If you struggle a lot with manpower, you should consider using more tanks. If translation messes up: IC is production cost.
@@sumzer_0 An advantage of 2 vs 3 width battalions is to form a 20 width division, two battalions are needed for the same width as three. In this case, two artillery battalions need 1000 manpower. Three infantry battalions need 3000 manpower. Artillery does more damage, for significantly less manpower. If playing a major, the IC needed for artillery is available, while manpower may be harder to come by, depending on the nation. Superior firepower gives plenty of bonuses for frontline artillery players. Artillery is semi-unique in that it requires IC but no fuel. Tanks, planes, warships, motorized, etc all require fuel. IC can be poured into artillery to increase combat effectiveness without considering fuel. This leaves more fuel for other uses and requires less fuel infrastructure.
@@InternetPerson-ij3fh This doesnt make any sense, you dont want to have something that takes more width. You want less width, not more. No. With a major you have more than enough IC for tanks, which is what you should be doing. Superior firepower does NOT give bonuses to line artillery, i explained this in the video. More artillery does not always increase combat effectiveness. This is just false.
@@蔡林翰-v2m In reality this isnt a huge issue, because you will have other units that can actually push. The advantage of small units is mostly on the defensive anyways. 9/1s are still decent. The problem is late game, and that there are other units that cost a lot more IC, but that are a lot more efficienct as well. Just because many people like attack, doesnt mean you should get as much as possible. That is what most people do. They cheap out on infantry and spend most on tanks.
It Always depends on, what your country can provide and what it lacks. When U have no manpower, infantry spam is not gonna work - you need to make stronger (push)division, even if it costs more/is slightly inefficient. It also takes very long to get more then 1 tank as a minor. And air is early completely useless as minor because: 1. you need the production for the basic needs 2. couldn't contest air against a major anyway so ALL of this production would be useless Usually when I play minor, I go for heavy inf to stomp my enemy's and only start tanks and air in mid/ to late game when I have factories concurred
nah. You can start throwing out tanks with 1938 tech. You can rush it, most trees has research speed for med armor. You don't have to throw out a high IC tanks all the time. Just make some small ones (~ double the IC of artillery) and cook with cheap, bad but not terrible tanks.I tried doing this on no-mountaineers Austria run in elite(which has longer research time and 60% decrease in mil output) and it was vital to capture supplies. Wouldn't recommend, tho. Manpower most of the time shouldn't be a problem. You ought to get right MA and get 5% recruitable combined with guerilla if you want to play it optimized.
@@georgfriedrichkaiser ye 38 Tanks Work, but Its way faster to get some 7/2 and stomp your neighbours. Then you still can go tank while you also snowballed industry
@@lennyauspacken If we talking vanilla hoi4 w/out any buffs then anything can cook AI tbh. People have done speedruns using a bunch of paratroopers and extremely high risk naval invasion, getting lucky to get result. Does that mean para and risky naval invasions are strongest in the game?
@@georgfriedrichkaiserofc the ai ist Trash. you talkin about "the strongest" but recommend tanks? Air + decent inf is way stronger. Tanks suck in Vanilla
Stellar video and everything I expected to see after watching your previous video. Granted that I'm a Japan player in Vanilla MP lobbies, what do you think the strategy would be now? Usually I'd do your typical line artillery divisions and marines and stack planning, but you bring up how Superior Artillery is viable now because of the bonuses it gives to support companies. Do you think that would outweigh the planning bonus and land night attack that GBP gives? As Japan, instead of putting IC into line artillery, what would it go into now? Tanks? Mech? Special Forces? Looking forward to hearing your thoughts. And I'd assume you'd think the same with line rocket artillery. Although it does give more breakthrough than line artillery, I'd assume it's also just as inefficient since the bonuses that come with it come just way too late and there's better alternatives.
Great question. In vanilla, japan is very limited. You can do line artillery for china war, but any further than that, its not a good idea. Both GBP and SFP are viable. If you are playing in a good multiplayer lobby (without any planning debuff from spies), then GBP is probably the best. Japan has very little IC, so its most important that you just survive any invasions, and try to steal as much rubber as you can. You should do air and special forces. Tanks and mech are too expensive for too little benefit as japan in asia.
@@justcausewhynot2483 That division would be a decent filler division. Preferably all of your attack units will be special forces. Since you need a massive garrison force, you should have a good amount special forces cap. Doing special forces doctrine should also increase the cap. For the templates itself, id recommend a 13/0 mountaineer, and either 12w marines, or 36w mech marines (although just 36w could work too). If you go with 36 mech marines, remember that you have to force attack for it to work the best.
@@sumzer_0 Do you know the most effective way to convoy escort as japan, or any nation? I don't what the most ic efficient way is. Would roach destroyers that are just sacrifical be best, asw subs that have depth charges but no sonar/radar too keep cost down, or expensive asw destroyers that are intended to kill the enemy subs? Also what are some discord servers to join to learn about the meta? Thank you.
Video is incomplete and ultimately falls flat due to failing to properly involve comparison to artillery only divisions, which is where line artillery really shines. The math is pretty complex, but the short of it is: if you remove artillery from an artillery only division, the division ceases to exist.
Only because Pdox nerfed "paradrop capable" divisions with 0 line battalions in them (only support companies). Prior to that, artillery only divisions with no artillery both very much existed and had an incredibly noticeable use case...
Generally you just need high soft attack breakthrough, and decent armor. Reliability and speed doesnt matter since its only one battalion (reliability's importance scales by amount) and infantry is 4 km/h. Generally howitzers, 3 man turret, armor clicks, riveted should work pretty fine. Add radios or easy maintenance if you want, and HMGs if you have a lot of IC.
This isnt for a specific reason, and is likely a mistake. I think i just wanted to keep the recon so it shares the most with the other templates. In reality i would definitely recommend using support AA if you dont have very green air.
@@VeryLittleGuy It means that the support artillery and rocket artillery has more impact. Since they dont take any combat width, they would have more impact on the overall stats when the combat width is lower. its just a way of stacking as much stats as possible per width.
There are some smaller reasons that i didnt think were big enough for the video that im going to post here:
1: Higher IC losses. The simplified formula for IC losses is organization * IC/HP. Line Artillery has higher IC and lower HP than infantry. Yes, lower organization as well, but its still an increase from infantry. 9/0 has 181.63 while 9/1 has 193.61. Therefore 9/1 has more IC losses.
2: Supply. A 9/1 consumes 7.5% more supply per width. Larger divisions usually have less supply per width due to supply companies consuming so much, so the extra 7.5% is even more than what it should be. A better example can be comparing a 9/2 with a 12/0, where the 9/2 uses 23.46% more supply.
3: Defense and Entrenchment. Line Artillery gives little to no defense, and does not help the entrenchment bonus that engineer company gives on infantry. Since infantry should for the most part hold the line, this is another disadvantage of line artillery
4: Terrain Bonuses. Line artillery has -20% attack in forests (-25% in jungle) and over river, as well as having -40% attack in amphibious. Although you wont instantly get these effects by putting artillery into your divisions, it will still have a small impact. Support artillery does not give any terrain buffs or debuffs.
Only advantage from using Line Artillery that I see is it use less manpower per combat width than Infantry. Infantry use 500/cw but artillerty use 167/cw, so if you are low manpower country you gonna have more cw to fill front line
Small addition/correction, Line artillery is benefited by entrenchment, as entrenchment multiplies both the defense and attack stats of a division, so long as it is defending. Defensive Infantry with greater attack isn't a bad thing as that means they deal greater damager to attackers and can thus hold the line more efficiently.
Otherwise I agree.
I guess 9/1 has less IC losses because more soft attack means the battle ends faster.
Also with this formula adding support artillery means more losses too, isn’t it?
Thanks for video, sorry for my English
@@0witw047 I think you misunderstood. I agree that entrenchment does have the same effect on artillery as it has on everything else. Engineer company gives entrenchment to each additional infantry battalion in the division. What i meant is that artillery does not benefit from this same effect. If it were replaced by infantry you would have higher entrenchment.
@@Данил-т3б1и Yes, thats why organization is in the formula. Yes, support artillery increases losses. In all of my examples i include support companies so it is the most realistic.
This is what I tried telling my friends.
Artillery shouldn't just increase soft attack but defense and breakthrough as well in my opinion.
Besides that, artillery is an indirect fire weapon, it's not supposed to have any combat width.
All in all, arty in Hoi4 is not just inefficient but unrealistic too.
Yes, totally agree. However line artillery should have some combat width. Zero would be too strong. Many mods use 1 cw, which i believe make a lot more sense
@@sumzer_0 i think this happens because the game does not give proper separation between the calibers, so a heavy arty who would be used in siege would have more combat with than a light arty used for defensive units.
It's inefficient in some aspects but not unrealistic. It's very OP, and making it more OP would break the game.
Only the rail artillery actually acts like artillery in this game.
Artillery does increase breakthrough and defense when upgraded with MIO:s.
Dude i was watching with no lights on and that spreadsheet flashbanged the shit out of me but anyways this is a very informative vid so keep it up bud
same lmao its 00.40 rn
@@adautke9943 which means you live somewhere in eastern europe?
@RobinMeineke Idk if you meant it, but this comment comes off creepy
Same! xD
@@FittrusHahhah😂
Okay but what if the mere concept of thousands of rounds of artillery shells makes me hard? Checkmate
hello my fellow: push with5, 10 width divisions of 2inf+2art Force attack banzai enjoyer :p
It is joever for the artillerybros
At least its not my sitdkrieg divisio with enough anti tank to have a jumpscare (nkt for the tanks tough)
It always was
Key responses -
1. Infantry have 2/3/4/5 breakthrough. Artillery has 6/7/8. T1 Arty Early into the game is incredible for attacking because of its breakthrough/width but falls off once T3 guns come into play. Breakthrough significantly reduces damage on the offensive.
2. Having a high soft attack division is important because of coordination. 35% of the damage the division does is concentrated. Having high soft attack per width means little, if a coordinated Line arty division can overwhelm defenders and do multiplied damage.
Otherwise after 1939 yes line arty is trash and support artillery should be exclusively used.
Motorized Arty changes the calculus again because of the +5, breakthrough buff, it becomes a choice of 3 motinf ((4to5))+5)*3=(27bto30b) vs 2 motart ((7to8)+5)*2)=(24bto26b) or in otherwords 27-30 breakthrough for 3 more motinf or 24-26 more breakthrough for 2 more motart.
But these are going to be rare specialized attacking divisions that are meant to cost effectively overwhelm defenders quickly.
1.
Arty early game is strong yes. So for example in china war, line artillery is useful for japan.
The basic math: with 1936 tech, infantry has 3.1 breakthrough, while line artillery has 6. Adjusted for CW thats almost a 50% increase. 1939 its 4.4 and 7.0. Adjusted for CW thats 6% more breakthrough.
One thing you failed to consider, is how advisors and generals impact it. Lets say 1936 tech, and only infantry expert. 9/0 vs 9/1, both with engineer and support arty. 9/0 has 36.4 breakthrough. Expert gives 15% bonus, so 36.4*1.15 = 41.86, then divided by width is 2.3255. 9/1 has 42.4 breakthrough, 13.5% bonus this time, so 42.2*1.135 = 48.124, then divided by combat width is 2.2916. So breakthrough per width is actually worse with line artillery, even early game. You could argue that artillery advisor can save this, but you likely wont get it early game, it gives less defense/breakthrough than the infantry advisor, and all of this doesnt even consider the bonus from infantry leader trait on the general.
Another problem with the breakthrough argument, is that you will be critted either way. Yes, you will take less damage on the offensive, but it isnt actually that significant. Especially when its only 6%.
2.
Im not sure i fully understand your point. All of your units will coordinate to the same division no matter how many divisions you have (as long as they are large enough width to target them). This means that the only thing you should worry about is the total soft attack in battle (soft attack per width) and the coordination.
Another argument is that larger divisions will be better because you are less likely to be critted in a combat versus smaller divisions. While this is true in theory, in practice, infantry has a lot of defense, so with somewhat decent tech and advisors/generals you shouldnt be critted either way by enemy infantry, and you wil never have enough breakthrough to not be critted. Only exception here is special forces, but line artillery is worse with special forces, so it shouldnt be considered. The general argument with larger divisions is more important in multiplayer, where you actually will face units that will crit you both on defense and offense, but in multiplayer, you will for the most part use tanks for this role.
Also you likely will have more than 35% coordination, radio gives another 4%, but it doesnt really matter for the argument.
Motorized artillery is not worth considering. These "fast" motorized units are basically just infantry that costs more, with slightly more breakthrough. Tanks are just better for this role. You dont need to make them expensive either, especially not in singleplayer. Only thing motorized units really are useful for, is snaking through the enemy lines, but they dont need to be good for this, so you can make them 10w just fine.
Nice to be recognized by someone as large as yourself i must say.
@@sumzer_0 - Co-ordinated attacks with 4 10 widths may not necessarily target the same division. Having a large division with high soft attack means that the probability of concentrating fire and overwhelming defense is higher.
Lets pretend the targeting of co-ord is completely random and 4 10w units are fight 4 10w units. That means each unit has 4 targets, which means there a 25%*25% chance that they "concentrate" their attacks on the correct target, or in otherwords only a 6.25% chance to concentrate fire on each combat tick and overwhelm the enemies defense.
Now imagine that you have 2 20w divisions attacking 4 10w divisions. The probability of attacking the right target is 25%*50% or 12.5% which is double the number of combat ticks where all co-ordinated strikes hit the same target.
The actual numbers don't matter, the maths follows along that a single 40w would hit a single target 25% of the time. Halving the number of divisions in the fight reduces variance in co-ordinated strikes against a target by half which is a big deal if the co-ordinated strikes are beating defense because of the attack multiplier for beating defense.
Hope that explains it, even if the actual variance is much smaller, having a higher concentration of soft attack from a division size point of view lowers the variance of strikes.
Edit: I could be wrong, but I was told that co-ordinated strikes don't always hit the same target, if I am wrong then discard.
Hoi 4 Ethiopia no line arty world conquest, when? 😂
I've never seen you play hoi4. When do you find the time?
@@PotatoMcWhiskey It is slightly random yes, but only on the list of targets, not the priority target.
Here is taken directly from the wiki:
"The attacks are split into an uncoordinated and coordinated part. Uncoordinated attacks are spread between all targets in the engagement width according to their respective width. One selected priority target additionally receives all of the coordinated attacks, increasing the chance to overcome its defenses.
[...]
The priority target is chosen by:
- considering how hardness affects the number of effective attacks the attacker would have against the target, with a slight bias for hard attacks
- avoiding armored targets: if armor exceeds the attacker's piercing, the rating is halved
- favoring low organizaton: based on the formula 100 % − org ratio / 4
"
This part is not random. Assuming a division have all enemy units in their engagement width, they will focus the same unit due to the weighing. If the division does not have all enemy units in their engagement width, they might not pick the same unit, but its still far from random, and actually a very high likelyhood of still picking the same unit.
@@PotatoMcWhiskey One thing that usually gets overlooked using large divisions vs small is that smaller divisions have more stats/width, due to support companies. At extreme ends of that consideration, a 10w will have 4x as many support companies as a 40w. When your support companies are giving a significant % of stats, adding width can easily decrease the damage you do, both overall and to single targets.
Superior firepower is the poster child for using low widths offensively, but it's still a lesser tradeoff in other doctrines.
Is hoi3 line artillery takes 0 width, you know, because artillery goes in the rear line irl.
@@aksmex2576 I am convinced Hoi4 thinks artillery charges with the infantry/tanks when a battle starts.
@@d-man9921 xD i pictured this and made me laugh a bit ty
@@Benjamin-od8od Add bayonets fixed on the artillery cannons' barrels. That's why it has low piercing.
I mean a game where we can bring back the Kaiser, The russian Tzar and have communist USA in the same timeline doesnt scream "100% historically accurate" to me ... this is a video game first and foremost, please try to have more constructive arguments
Also, dont forget about Rangers tech. It buffs line artillery attack by 15%, it still useless because it consumes support slot, but sometimes I play 15 width if I have an advisor.
It buffs line artillery by 20% yes, but the problem with it is that you get it pretty late (doctrine and technology-wise) that artillery is pretty weak. Artillery gets comparatively weaker overtime, so assuming you dont immediately rush the ranger bonus (which you shouldnt), then there isnt any point.
@@sumzer_0 yes, I agree with you.
@@sumzer_0 Countries like Mexico, where their theater of operations is full of mountains (USA and South America), receive an important benefit from rush ranger bonus.
@@PIXTONER2.0_Archiveit helped me in China as Guangxi win those fancy border conflicts
The other choice is so much better. Defense and combat width reduction for mountaineers is so strong
This post was made by mass assault players
Uhm actually superior firepower does best job at buffing support companies and attack of the army in general 🤓
🐇🐇🐇
Sup companies in sup firepower are really good. Much better than the line arty side. Super cheap
@@darkosphere3252 yk, integrated support + shock and awe is still GOOD for line artillery, u trade a little soft attack with MORE ORGANIZATION with the support companies, which makes your artillery divisions even stronger
superior firepower lads still stuck in 2019 with 7/2 divs be like:
I used to use 8/3 (infantry/artillery)
And their damage would always fall off near the end of battles. This definitely helps me understand why pure infantry is often a bit better. Thank you!
Of course 8/3 fell off, you got no org at that ratio
thats the division i use! it works for me though but i use a lot of planning bonus
On the case of technology:
In-between equipment upgrades, which also inrease production cost, infantry receives a single 5% soft attack bonus, while artillery receives 3 separate 10% bonuses to soft attack. And these 10% bonuses are even more valuable due to starting value which is increased by 10% three times being much larger, than the starting value of infantry equipment soft attack. That means any percentage increases are much more valuable.
Artillery is also faster to research, I don't know the exact numbers but roughly a year ahead of time the next artillery tech will cost as much as up-to-date infantry tech without any penalty
All of these are considered in my calculations. When i say "1939 tech" or "1942 tech" i have researched everything relevant to the calculations.
@@sumzer_0
You didn't mention non-equipment technologies in the video itself, you only compared increases between three versions of infantry equipment and three versions of artillery equipment
If you did consider non-equipment increases in calculation, you didn't show that in the video example, since you only researched the first +10% artillery increase (I'm speaking of part 2 specifically)
But on the point of line arty usefullness, I do agree that it becomes weaker than more infantry in lategame, when you can field more than just a few tank divisions. But early game, it is increadibly strong, especially as countries like Poland or China that can't afford a large tank production. Tho I'd never choose military doctrines that boost it, support improvements are straight up better
Ok but these apply less per combat width comparatively to mountaineer or marine and don’t give more break/defence compared to gun3 upgradables
@@starhalv2427 This is implied in the "1939 tech" or "1942 tech" part.
I did. There is only one artillery increase before 39. The next one is 1940 tech.
Tank production is a very small reason to why artillery becomes weaker late game. There is no reason to why china should do line artillery. You have so much manpower you can just orgwall your way to victory.
@@sumzer_0 Okay but have you taken into account MIOs? Not only they increase soft attack, defense breakthrough reliatibility and increase production efficency, they undeniably and steadily make ART better overtime, not even considering policy of said MIO
Also some countires have unique traits that also improve ART ... in case the headache wasn't strong enough
This is strange considering how important artillery was in WW2, the amount of big guns per 1 km was really scary for some armies.
At this point one begins to wonder where the the money goes in Paradox. Barely any interesting new content that's much better than free mods, armor and air is just a mess, sh!tty traits system, no rebalances for atleast some historical accuracy, AI is beyond braindead, navy is just crap unfixable spaghetti code, i could go on..
Go on...
Can we talk about the AI taking focuses and so changing side or joining factions randomly? Or the fact that we still have after half a decade division that can attack you going through neutral countries?
a country that i neighbored declared war on me with 0 divisions
@@goosebeater9383 I know this one! It's an american classic!
That's one hell of a salty noob here
Artillery shelling should lowkey be a battle modifier like air support or naval bombardment instead of direct combat width
Finally I found someone who talks about the formulas that I derived independently. I wrote about them under many videos, but UA-camrs did not react at all, and here I don’t even need to write, you showed them! It’s nice to know that my calculations are correct. It’s also nice to see how generals are taken into account here, since I did not take them into account
This game may have too many variables to take into account ... this is why I love it
I tried to play again just with support artillery plus and rocket support artillery instead putting the normal 9x2 template i it was indeed much better
As the lord Jesus Christ himself once said "Thou shalt not tear through thoust foe's ass with the big boom stick ... it's not cool"
I put your proposal to the test with a fresh game as germany. Contrary to my usual style of having lots of artillery, I reduced to support-artillery and used the free factories to build more tanks and trucks. Everything went well! Plus, My inf chewed through less equipment and used fewer supplies.
Maybe just maybe because, Germany is supposed to make tanks and not shock troops?
@@ultimatestuff7111 As a minor like hungary or latvia, you could potentially make ~5 tanks divisions while having ~30 12w infantries. (This, is if you rush economic focuses, which is something most should do.) It helps alot, trust.
Yeah and your wife came back and you have job and not workless lmao
@@super-copter27 damn bro whered that come from
this video absolutely blew my mind and made everything click, i play hoi4 very causally, sometimes mp but never pvp and i sometimes do a lil roleplaying like going really light or heavy on tanks or planes for example but infantry templates is always something i struggled with and this made so much sense
now im gonna watch your video on infantry
also immediately subscribed
Good video bro. These days while playing minors like Denmark in single player, I would put 2-3 soft attack tanks in infantry template to create a pushing template. So many great things about this:
1. cheap to design template, lower width than using artillery
2. Able to sacrifice speed whenever possible while designing tanks to maximize attack and armor
3. Less IC than motorized template
4. Less exp loss
Germany's regular inf wasn't even piercing me. Only problem is no hard attack, but in base game Germany makes like 5 tanks total so it's not a problem.
the way I learned line arty sucks was by playing 30 min of hell Poland. After you get the achievement and start to push germany, you can push easily even though you dont have artillery. it made me see that I just dont need that extra production cost in my divisions.
infantry + artillery divisions are popular in singleplayer because they're easy to make by any country, easy to keep supplied and have reasonable allrounder combat stats for rather cheap which allows you to produce fighters and support planes (cas or tac bombers, it doesn't really matter) aka things that in singleplayer actively win wars¨
they're not "overrated" at all, using specific multiplayer divisions as an example as to why 9/1 is "bad" is a joke because realistically in singleplayer there's 0 usecase for 16 width pure infantry with logi+antitank or gigantic marine infantry divisions with airdrop LTs and med flamers
like yeah in multiplayer they're kind of bad because they don't actually do much when compared to specialized pure defense infantry or pure attack spec forces/tank+mech divisions but multiplayer meta is completely different to singleplayer meta where you as a player have to often carry entire factions of braindead AI in which situation you can't actually divide responsibilities and have countries set up their industry to favour a specific branch or strategy like you can in multiplayer
edit: also comparing arty to tanks is comical, tanks cost army xp to even set up, require a ludicrous amount of even more army xp to get a template that's not terrible, require a ton more research, eat fuel like crazy and take ages to get their production lines running up to a scale where you're not essentially just devoting mils to an IC black hole and are actually getting enough daily tanks to start producing worthwhile divisions
like i don't think you understand that line artillery isn't some sort of an end-all be-all solution to problems but a cheap stopgap that allows you to outfit your infantry divisions with an ability to actually deal some amount of meaningful damage in the early to midgame
This first point is the exact reason to why you shouldnt do line artillery. They are harder to keep supplied, and cost a lot of IC that couldve been spent on exactly planes.
I dont see your point. My point with the 16w isnt to show what you should do, but argue why line artillery would be a bad idea.
I think you overestimate the difference between singleplayer and multiplayer meta. The only real difference is the amount of soft vs hard attack needed.
Again, total exaggeration. It requires barely more army xp. Since its only one battalion per division you should not have major issues with producing them.
Artillery is pretty good in the early to mid-game yes, but the problem is after that. There isnt really any point to having line artillery after 1940, because everything else is so much better.
@@sumzer_0 I mean i never really see people rely much on arty after 1940 so by your own logic if it's pretty good during early and midgame then it is in fact pretty good overall. Simply because as almost any nation in any mod to actually play the game in late game single player you need good tanks and and/or an obscine amount of cas. And at that point there is no viable difference in how your average grunt division is composed
@@Warcrimy Line artillery isnt good midgame, and is only viable early game. This is basically 36-38. Most wars dont happen in this timespan.
No, its not good overall. If there is no difference in how the average infantry is, then you definitely dont need to waste any IC on artillery. Its much better spent in the things you mention like planes and tanks.
space marines also could have line artillery,i just can't understand. dose line artillery just mean things like 9/3or infantry with line artillery.11/4with 1tank
is cheapest way to push ai in single player game
@@sumzer_0 I am not convinced by line arty as an option even in those really early wars. I think making it could cost you the game in SP as Austria if you just turn down Germany and fight them. Ethiopia is happy to get enough factories to put SUPPORT artillery on its divisions. Not many other nations fighting on constrained fronts that early. You can make a case for Japan, but they can get armor bonus using even their starting templates unless China invests in more pen.
I've come to the same conclusion, the only things I add now is towed anti-air. The combat width is preposterous and organisation loss is not worth the stats it gives.
Yep, totally agree.
Video was extremely helpful. I have over 400 hours and didn't know alot of this. Definitely going to use less line art and more mechanical vehicles. Loved it
Very tragic video, artillery should be absolutely necessary in practically every case. It needs a massive buff.
Agreed, though Pdox does not agree with us. They explicitly nerfed it in the WTT patch years ago. Prior to that, it did 30% more damage, and 14/4 was actually a legitimate composition for offensives. The last time 7/2 or 14/4 were actually a good choice, in fact.
As you say, this flies in the face of actual equipment performance in both world wars, where artillery was the leader in both.
@@TheMelnTeamhell, it flies in the face of modern conflicts as well. Artillery still reigns supreme
I’m not gonna lie I haven’t checked the meta in years and now I feel like a kid who got lost in the supermarket and started living in the ceiling
Canned soup and beef jerky ftw
Frankly as a SP player ... the meta's fucking pointless like ... who cares if you waste IC on heavy tank, you're still going to crush Germany as the USA lol
Really good video well explained
I would like to add two things to it as someone who plays meta games
1. HP is one of the most important stats as with higher HP you can use Commander abilities( force attack/ last stand)better and longer without losing the division
Without those abilities you would never land a dday in a meta game as you would just deorganise to fast
2. We once made a separate mod were arty was 2 combat witdh instead of 3 still no one used it as it is still to bad to compete with gun 2 and 3 line inf
The only one really using arty in an meta game is japan vs china (ai)
I'm sorry to be _that_ guy but saying "this is META™" without saying MP or SP is annoying
@@sgtburden8482 the video is about MP META templates (check intro) ; with "in a meta game" it always implicates MP and "we"(as in we = meta players) should also tell you i am talking about MP ;the first one is general and counts for both SP and MP so it wouldnt even matter as the combat itself (unless changed and touched by mods)stays the same and therefore the tipp is for both
@@nausimur6035 "Meta game" is too ambigious to know for sure
Also since MP is usually with mods reworking game mechanics for balance including combat width, I think it's a bit strange to say something is good / bad since every MP has its own sets of mods and is rarely pure vanilla
@@nausimur6035 Meta template does not necessarily imply "MP" feedback gaming uses meta quite a lot and he is SP-only
@@sgtburden8482 i said the term " meta game " imply MP game not Meta as a standalone word ; and yes the words meaning has been inflated by people using it wrong and overusing it same goes for the word overpowered
and still why would i specify something that counts for both SP and MP as High HP in divs is important in hoi and arty is just really bad because of its 3 combat witdh it is part of the game ;
a chess piece doesnt move different for a GM than to a new player
Any battalion type can be either overused or underused.
I remember some years ago in Hearts of Iron 4 when one of the game start division templates that the United Kingdom used to have was 4 infantry battalions plus 4 artillery battalions, for a total of 20 Combat Width. The United Kingdom doesn't have that as one of its game start division designs anymore. 4 artillery battalions is normally too much in a division design anyway, but it made one think about just what situations a towed artillery battalion could be advantageous for.
A towed artillery battalion does has some advantages that can be occasionally considered.
1. Good Soft Attack per 100 Manpower.
2. Zero fuel usage.
3. Excellent Soft Attack per Supply Usage.
4. A way to add 3 Combat Width when terrain or else enemy Combat Width makes having 3 more Combat Width advantageous.
5. A fair amount of Soft Attack per Combat Width.
6. Good Defense per 100 Manpower.
Since so many battalion types have a Combat Width of 2, meaning that an intermediate division design for Switzerland could easily be 22 Combat Width, I could definitely understand a Switzerland player adding towed artillery to bring Combat Width of such an intermediate division design from 22 to 25 - just the right Combat Width to defend some mountain tile.
Also, there can be situations where both a towed anti-air battalion and a towed anti-tank battalion are needed. A towed artillery battalion can help balance out the resulting addition of Air Attack and Hard Attack with some Soft Attack that is supply-frugal and manpower-frugal and fuel-frugal.
Short version: There are some situations when having a towed artillery battalion is useful. Sometimes, such a situation is temporary while waiting for a clearly better tech to be produced, but sometimes a towed artillery battalion is a good enough choice that it should be left in place.
Soft attack per manpower and soft attack per supply use really useless metrics. If you replaced soft attack with maximum damage it would become better.
A lot of people overestimate the impact of combat width. In mountains, you dont actually need 25w, as 26w works perfectly fine.
There is no need "balancing out" hard attack or air attack. That isnt how the game works. Because of the org hit you probably need more infantry, not less.
that was just before when people understand how hp works
Yeah, even when defending in mountains, or when defending against a river crossing, or when defending against a sea invasion, or even when you have a division that has high Hardness and Armor stats, you need at least 125 HP. The 100 HP in that former United Kingdom game start artillery division template simply wasn't enough even in fairly commonplace good defensive terrain situations to avoid combat losses to division experience.
Unless you are in an unusual niche situation like defending a river crossing in a level 10 mountain fort, 100 HP simply isn't enough when fighting a 1st class army.
Even 125 HP is risky for being too low of a division HP to retain experience, but some low population countries don't have a choice to go higher in HP, and also even higher population countries get in situations of trying to avoid the production hit from going to a 10% or 20% conscription law.
@@sumzer_0 It seems like back in the day before WTT, support artillery cost 24 rather than 12 pieces, line artillery was still 36, and line artillery was 30% more damaging. That was probably the last time it was justifiable to use it, since advanced arty would give 20 base SA/w before doctrines were applied, roughly.
Pdox hated the idea of the most lethal weapon in the war being used a lot, nerfed it into the floor, while making support artillery half cost for some reason.
Edit: SPG was also similarly nerfed, which is also why it sucks now. Imagine if you got 30% more base damage out of it, people might actually use it!
"this meta template doesn't have artillery because artillery is overrated" *shows a tank template* no fucking shit there's no line artillery in a tank division
Also seeing the amount of AT, this is MP templates divisions which are completly irrelevant for SP players
The amount of poeple trying to argue over MP / SP without realising they are two completly different UNIVERSES is extremely annoying
Please make more, i can't wait to abuse my friends with the knowledge i acquired, tier list was also superb.
Today, we will learn that there is no god ... only our glorious Overlord Microsoft Excel
So line art contrubution is negligible by most if not all scenarios? Fun because from what i've learned from your vids, i found interesting success on adding just one line art for offensive units in early game, i surely dropped line art from templates after 1938-39, but the premise stands. All of that in singleplayer ofc.
Before answering, please consider that i only have barely over 150 hours played mostly in regular diff, be gentle :D
You've been cooking great stuff in this channel!
Yes, you are correct. 9/1 is viable in some situations, but generally, there isnt much point in doing any line artillery at all.
I believe you have an amazing understanding of the game for someone who only has 150 hours, so good job!
@@sumzer_0 To be fair, I was somewhat forced to absorb so much information to reach a basic level compared to a friend who wanted me to play with him in coop, and i surely expect some versus games. He has over 3k hours played, and I feel like I've almost trained myself to play Hearts of Iron, but at least it's working to a minimun hahaha.
Cheers, and keep up the good work!
Very good vid, man!
Don't stop with the hoi4 content. I can see you and your channel growing a lot because of the quality and direct flow of information. Keep it up bro
Every China enthusiast needs to watch this video and your previous one
In all my games I put so much industry in artillery, because I played alot with 9/3 or 14/4 Divisions, moutaineers and marines also with artillery. If I need much less artilerry it will change everything.
"Best players meta division templates"
> proceeds to slap everything he sees from red barron
brother there's more mp community
6:16 - "per se" means in itself / of itself. You seem to use it to mean for example.
🏳🌈
the real, fast, awnsere is that hoi 4 (beeing a ww2 game and all) is focus aroun d mechanised infantry, Combined arms divisions and air. While in reality artillers was still very much effective and important, a surprisingly high amount of tank kills are due to artillery destroying tanks which the infantry demobilised, the main focus is basicly on german,soviet and usa army developments. Which where primarily focused on mechanising there forces, as well as tanks and armor variants.
That beeing saied if you ever find the time to I would relay like to see a similar analysis like this one but with spg's and Tank destroyers. basicly if a 9/1 mecha/spg or a 9/3 mecha/spg have the same problems a 9/1 Inf/arty and a 9/3 inf/arty have.
It's so Fieldhaubitz-over.
I bet all those meta players have green air with lots of cas that is responsible for doing all the damage. If you can't get green air, you NEED a way to do damage. Pure inf standing there and taking hits is good for SU or China which can afford manpower losses of prolonged fights. Smaller countries simply cannot afford to use org walls to defend themselves or build tons of air/cas for attack. Line art is needed to end fights faster, so they take less damage from attacks and enemy cas. It's simply a cheap source of soft attack and damage compared to everything else.
Finally, inf2 and inf3 are bad. Expensive in IC and resources, come too late for 1939 wars, and you need so many of them it's not even funny. They are good for countries that come late into the war and can rush the tech before starting to build them.
For MP, not really. Assuming minor(cuz you NEED to win the air fight as a major), your job is not to make arty. But instead, you spam tanks and let majors fill front. If majors don't, fill front with extensively defensive divisions. Which, obviously makes arty less reliable.
For SP, no also. You can just sit behind a river line or build some forts in red air and still grind kills. Easily 1/10 trade. After that their divisions have little strength and are cooked.
Inf2 and Inf3 are only bad when you have no time to build up prod. eff. Just make 2 lines with former and current inf techs
inf will never push under red air, and line arty will never push under green air XD
a really important point is: how long u hold the line vs a superior enemy, like tanks.
pure low width inf (with some supply batts) will hold far longer than inf+line arty.
in this time, u can rotate inf, bring your own tanks into position to make encirclements/counter their encirclements.
so, russian default inf is the best i think. 9inf+support arty.
some line arty only helps at beating back enemy soft attack attacks, which isnt important at mp, because main job is done by tanks there.
I'm sorry to be _that_ guy but could you prove it in-game?
Because considering :
-Doctrines
-Terrain
-Template
-Tank Design
-MIOs
-Tech
-Generals
-Supply
-National Spirits (Looking at you Germany)
Your statement can be complete bullshit or 60-80% true
I like the Vic 2 system where if your artillery is behind your front line it gets big bonuses. So you could have up to half be artillery in an infantry division and for each battalion get a big soft attack bonus, at the cost of greater ic and combat width
how the hell could we do something similiar in hoi4? It sounds like a great idea but impleting it in hoi4 sounds ... tough
oh fuck yes its xcel spreadsheet time
The other things i noticed between those divisions:
-2 have engineers, and a third has Pioneers, which are just engineers for Marines
-some of them have Field Hospitals now
Field Hospitals = More HP which is *_meta_* for MP
If you play SP tho, don't bother, as long as you win, do whatever you want ... or don't win at all and just throw millions of men to die pointlessly against china
Line artillery is deceptively expensive. I prefer to focus on tanks and motorized infantry but I do use support artillery a bit.
I have 800 hours on this game and always put artillery in my battalions... crazy to see this now. Its also like every guide suggests to take some artillery and lots of big content creates like bitt3rsteel for example. I cant believe it actually being somewhat worse than just not having it thanks for the education.
bitt3rsteel is actually pretty bad, but ig he is fine for initial guides for singleplayer
I think line artillery is fine for countries with really low manpower. You get a good ratio of manpower to soft attack damage. So while its less efficient per combat width, it's more efficient man power to damage ratio. You dont risk encountering overcrowding effects when you're using a 9/2 24 width in Onega holding back the Soviets from pushing into Norway.
I find the main use I have for artillery is a few purpose-built 25-width 8/3 mountaineers, since mountaineers are limited and almost everything else has so many penalties in the mountains
@@epicarcher999 no, this is basically the opposite of your goals. As you said yourself, everything except mountaineers have huge penalties in mountains. This includes artillery.
As i said in my video, special forces are even worse with artillery than normal infantry is. Special forces has higher attack than infantry, so artillery does less. Mountaineers should be 13/0.
@@sumzer_0 Have you taken into account the special forces doctrine that doubles buff ART with mountaineers?
That's certainly what it's felt like for me since the last major update at least. Didn't do any math, but just building infantry with line artillery isn't enough to just battleplan-steamroll the AI anymore, artillery definitely got a big nerf. building high-org-low-atk holding divisions AND dedicated ultra-high-atk units seems to be a must now.
You destroyed all my believes, i was honestly shocked after your best infantry video and couldn’t think about anything else for a day.
Another lost soul saved thanks to our lord and savior Excel
Early artillery has a niche though. It's good for Japan when attacking China, but only 9/1s. They're reasonably cheap, and combo well with cavalry recon and ground support CAS. Basically, they're cost-effective early on for somebody who isn't rich but needs to go to war early.
Amazing video! Keep it up!
Support artillery is obscenely good though. 10w infantry with support artillery, light-tank recon with tanks optimized for soft attack and breakthrough, together with air superiority and superior firepower doctrine is by far the best way to fight in bad terrain, excepting special forces which should also be 10w.
You need to micro them, however, because they have low HP and take a lot of casualties if you battleplan.
Bad video, didnt watch
🗿
Yup. I love my 10/5 spam, my 12/2 spam, I love to spam line artillery at any chance I get.
Good video, watched
Just mod arty to make sense it’s bad in vanilla
🗿
Hey, I see you have great knowledge of the game mechanics and even do math calculations. You should make an attacking division tierlist, I think it'd be really helpful :)
tanks. list closed.
@@arankoka SP / MP ?
You can't just drop "TONK STRONK, INF NOT STRONK" and just not specify if that's SP or MP
In SP the ai is dumb enough that mass Inf with CAS works fine
couple of questions:
is using line artillery research effective? 1934 arty is usually already researched and even light tanks need around 4-5 techs. is arty worth it in early wars or is pure infantry better?
Are the Mountain Artillery/ Blowtorch and Corkscrew special forces doctrines useful?
can support arty make special forces templates better without needing Special Forces Cap?
how useful is soft attack anyways if you have cas?
Depends. Artillery is actually worth it in the early wars, but the problem is that basically the second you get guns 2, you shouldnt do line artilllery anymore. It is probably more efficient to produce other stuff at the start, and start producing for example tanks when you can, than you start with artillery, just to remove them after a bit.
Not really. Mountain artillery is decent for buffing line artillery, but the problem is that you get it so late. It costs around 240 xp to get, which means you should prioritize doctrine first, and that you likely get it pretty late in the game, when line artillery is the worst. Blowtorch and Corkscrew is just bad, because 2 org is next to nothing.
Yes. Support artillery and support rocket artillery are really good at increasing soft attack without much downside.
Its still useful. It also depends, if your opponent has no air, and no AA, you really only need CAS to win. Otherwise you would actual stats.
@@sumzer_0 Hold on a second, 240 xp for the mountaineers ART buff? I'm pretty you could get that before guns 2 with good early conquest ... or some spanish xp farming and attaché to china / japan
Ok, great video but there appears to be a huge oversight in your analysis - what about if you’re not primarily limited by combat width but by manpower? Line Arty delivers TEN TIMES the Soft attack per manpower, and so many nations are primarily constrained by manpower(and lack the IC/research slots, so air or any usable tank division is basically punted until 1940). This is of course from a single player, mostly “difficult AF achievement as minor nation” perspective
This isnt an oversight at all. Manpower issues are much easier to get around than IC issues are. IC is, and will always be the most important thing in hoi4 to optimize. If you really do struggle with manpower that much, tanks are much better. Even something as space marines could work if you think you are limited. There are no countries that are incapable of doing the necessary research required for a decent tank division.
Also, SA per manpower is a really bad metric. Max damage per manpower, or manpower losses are probably a lot better, and more accurate.
I do both, stack line arty in a GBP SPAA space marines division with a +20% SA from Rangers etc. I find manpower issues more debilitating than equipment by far. You have so many ways of getting equipment, lend lease, international market, capitulation etc - manpower is much more difficult to come by.
Again, this is coming from someone who just had to do achievement runs with Norway, Ethiopia, Iceland, Mexico, Switzerland etc., by the time I have excess manpower I’ve basically already won, it’s in the beginning when it’s make or break that you need to be able to push with no manpower.
To put it another way, a 10k infantry division will have like 60 base damage and won’t push shit… swap 3 inf for 3 arty and you not only can make more divisions but they’ll actually crit and allow you to push. Add an SPAA and you can battle plan through literally anything the AI will throw at you, green air be damned (although it does help)
@@sumzer_0Mexico for example has literally 2 research slots, and you need to conquer Portugal and Spain real quick to get manpower, to knock out the allies, to bully Stalin, and then conquer the USA. You’re not doing that, and the amphibious landings necessary for basically every achievement with tanks.
@@JDothan No. Manpower is simply a smaller issue. Even with rangers that give +20% SA, its not enough. By that point in the game you have so good tech that artillery is even worse. Special forces and tanks are much more effective if you lack manpower.
I would say it's worth it considering the soft attack because of Rangers which give a boost to line artillery... The optimal template to me equipement to soft attack is ranger +artillery + rocket artillery
Soviet katyusha go brrrrrrrrrrrr
I used to think so until recently when I had another Japan game. After a bad one I swapped to superior firepower and a lot of line artillery, just like how I used to dominate waking the tiger and man the gun MP matches and guess what happened? Killed China on very hard AI during 1937.
Old meta is still strong, hpwever there is a case to be made and especially on the eastern front I think artillery on all units is suboptimal. However I do like line artillery as gap filleers behind tanks.
fantastic videos, you should make a video about meta tanks, doctrines, and navy meta
Those inf templates are "meta" based on tank divisions and reinforce rate (hence mass mob titles), not based on what's most effective in any other scenario or even META combat width (10/15/30/35 when maxed), hence sup AT and supply somehow making any sense. There's a land combat guide on steam, which coincides with ur excel, that 4:1 inf to line art is the max for any doctrine, where closer to 6:1 is more desirable for def. templates. The age of 7/2 and 14/4 is certainly long over, but honestly working a line AT and some line art works against that barb inf@30/35W. Since the meta for AA is the first tech, u can't pierce light tank recon built against that asia template (about 200~240IC extra is all). U would have to add AT to counter this. But u get bullied for taking SF doctrine, so no META counter, just more tanks and garb inf to cover encirclement losses.
I dont think i understand. There is no hard meta combat width, especially 15w and 30w which you list. I dont know if i understand the rest. Are you arguing that you should do other stuff, that you should do what im saying?
@@sumzer_0 I'm addressing multiple points, sry.
1, Why no line art in meta?
The meta of no line art developed as a result of the minimum u can get away with cost of divs to stall ur enemies encirclements, so more IC can be put into YOUR encirclement efforts, not any other reason. So stats don't matter, just cost to stall assuming u lose the div. Thats why mass mob is used, it gives the worst stats to inf/art compared to SF or GB, but gives reinforce rate, which helps slow down encirclements and replace inf losses.
2, If 1 isn't true, then cost/stats matters.
You brought up stats per combat width (CW) as an argument to why line art is bad. Overstacking penalty then should also be considered, where the CWs I mentioned result in the lowest overstacking penalties. If u say, this isn't an issue, then IC or stats/CW is not a factor, as u never max ur width. Look up "Reserves" section to see what i mean about combat width, it affects reinforce rate, which again is why CW is not maxed.
3, If CW is maxed, I mean to agree on then, that line art added over the ratio mentioned, does affect org/losses more than the benefit of soft attack added. 9/1 vs 9/2 is not a real comparison, but combat success of (5)9/1s vs (3)12/2s or (6)6/1s on a 60(+30) forest tile is. Or even (7)6/1's or (3)12/2's against (5)9/1's in a 70(+35) plains.
In summary, any analysis of stats/CW, cost/CW, or cost/stats are not factors as to why line art is not part of the meta. Its that ur inf is designed to stall tanks and then get encircled, not to fight efficiently or effectively.
@@HeartofCobalt Im not sure if you are agreeing with me or not.
As long as you can guarantee to fill combat width, and your goal is the most stats, then max damage per width is the best metric.
If you cant fill combat width, then the formula i presented in the video (org*SA/IC^2) is the best. Either way, both of these formulas generally support the argument of no line artillery, especially the last one.
@@sumzer_0 I half agree with your argument, that because of the meta, line art makes no sense. Going from 9/0 to 9/3, does take terrain into account, so of course anything over 9/1 is worse (because it has more then 6:1 ratio). Plug into excel; 12/2 is better than 9/3, 6/1 is better than 9/2. If you look at other combinations the data will show that adding line art is better DEPENDING on inf/art RATIO. both 6/1 and 12/2 have more art than 9/1, and are better at MAX CW. Yes, they are worse at less than max combat width using your formula, but it is not difficult/expensive to max combat width for 6/1 and 12/2's. If you replace 9/2 and 9/3 with 6/1 and 12/2 in your excel, you will get much better values.
Question: in the 6/0 template, why use motorized recon? I get maximizing the soft attack, but cavalry recon is cheaper and uses no fuel, while giving the same soft attack. Also, I get that logistics companies are just always good to have (especially when using fuel), but seeing how you're using an infantry division to push, wouldn't field hospitals make more sense for the hp bonus and xp retention? That and 6/0 divs won't be particularly supply hungry anyway, even stacked, right?
Also that same template, what about flame tanks? I thought they were pretty much always worth it in attack divisions.
Also on the topic of cheap assault divisions, while mechanized does seem way too pricey for non-tank divisions, is motorized ever worth it? Like for example, the 6/0 just with motorized instead of regular inf (this time the motorized recon making much more sense). Extra breakthrough, speed and a smidge of hardness for some terrain penalties and higher IC.
I'm asking these questions from an SP perspective, though MP is always interesting to hear about as well.
I still like using motorized support artillery for my 30 width mountaineers, because it also buffs breakthrought decently.
Mountaineers have way more breakthrough. Motorized artillery also costs a decent chunk more. Again, with special forces, line artillery is even worse.
Hi, I already saw a video of another guy telling this very same stuff and I stopped using line artillery. However in harder scenarios than basic vanilla, I keep getting stuck because it looks that my divisions are too weak for attacking, and not every nation has the industry to spam tanks or airforce in sufficient quantities. Instead I see a lot of those famous youtubers that play disaster saves in which they just delete all the production queue but infantry equipment, artillery and AA and smash the AI with 9/3s or mountaineers 9/3. What do you think about this issue?
I think what you need is to learn some new division designs. Later in this video i show some examples, but ill quickly list them here:
- 6/0 infantry division with support rocket- and normal artillery (remember to use SFP)
- Space marine, 9 infantry and 1 medium tank.
- Try your best at getting tanks. Just 2-4 can do amazing work for you.
- Special Forces can also help you a lot. Remember to get all of the bonuses for them as well.
These YTers dont know as much as you think. I dont want to be cocky, but i know that youtubers like feedback and bittersteel get a lot more credit than they deserve. Yes, they understand singleplayer a lot, but they dont actually optimize the gameplay as much as youd think. If you talk to some proper sweaty meta players, they will laugh at you if you say that these YTers are good at hoi4.
Never use line artillery with special forces. Its just not worth it. Just stack your bonuses and you will be fine.
@@sumzer_0Can i use mechanized with marines then?
@@kingnevermore25 You can, but generally shouldnt. Really only needed in sweaty multiplayer games. 12w marines will work more than fine in SP.
@@sumzer_0 But i want to have marines who are able to push and have a breakthrough (dont want space marines tho with tanks so i thought mechanized)
Great video!
Your last 3 videos have convinced me entirely to start using support Artillery and AA instead of line for the most part.
For multi-player, what main line infantry template do you recommend for France to maximize casualties inflicted on the German player?
I'm thinking 10 infantry, support AA, support Artillery, engineers, and field hospitals, with heavy focus for production on fighters and CAS to actually deal the damage on attacking spearheads, but I feel like a total noob in multi-player for France.
Good to hear.
In multiplayer, you usually do probably mass assault infantry. 10 infantry, support aa, support arty, engineers, and I think support anti tank would be more important. Otherwise pretty close.
You dont have enough factories to produce enough air. If you do, you are probably building too much on mainland france (you should only build up the colonies you get as free france). Again, if its not a tryhard multiplayer lobby you can probably get away with air.
@@sumzer_0 thanks for the reply! What would be considered a good performance for France? Is it feasible for a skilled France with decent British help to stall Barb to early 1942, or is that just way too optimistic?
@@Glamerth If its an equally good france and germany, then being able to stall until early-mid 1940 is really good. Further than that, the game would just be over.
You said in the Inflanty video to have template for battles breaking through where you showed inf 9/3 + mointain inf 12/3. Make up your mind
@@bloodwynn i never recommended 9/3. i showed a 12/3, but talked about how it isnt worth it later in the game.
For mountaineers, i only believe i showed a 13/0, but im certain thats the only division ive recommended for mountaineers.
Regarding marines w art, the main issue is usually special forces cap so makes sense to me to fill out regiments with art which is alrdy in production at game start. Tho I agree re tanks once they're available.
Any thoughts on mountaineers with rangers and art tho? Art easily allow the 25w and rangers give line art bonuses. When combined with medium flame seem to do great work thru the Alps in my SP experience.
That is a very real issue. The problem is that adding line artillery just makes it worse. For marines its even worse, since artillery literally gives a debuff to amphibious attacks.
Getting exactly 25w isnt as important as you might think. The meta is actually 26 and all the way up towards 32w. The bonus rangers give to line artillery is nice, but you would get it pretty late in the game (both doctrine and technology-wise) that artillery is relatively worse than almost everything else. I'd believe you would be surprised by how good it will do if you started putting the artillery research on rushing better guns, and using pure-mountaineer divisions.
@@sumzer_0imo, rangers works far better with tanks as it reduces terrain penalties. Heck, put it with a flame tank and you can have a tank division with +5% attack on mountains
@@sumzer_0 I really don't understand why the meta is 26 up to 32, look forward to seeing why in future vids!
@@guyincognito3199 Mountains have 50w + 25w, which means that 26w basically fit perfectly. In multiplayer, you rely a bit more on HP for force attacking, so the extra HP you get from increasing it will help in certain circumstances. You will also take some more combat width penalties from this, but not as much as the increase in HP. If you go over 33w it no longer "fits" into the terrain, meaning you can only get 1 division in each battle (instead of 2). Its a bunch of theory, and not needed for singleplayer.
@@3dcomrade Rangers cap your tank division's speed at 6.4 kilometers per hour though iirc, so that's a big disadvantage in my opinion. Unless you're using slow, heavy tank behemoths obviously
This is why I use rocket artillery instead, so that I not only am dumb but I seem dumb as well
Also slightly unrelated, what do you think about cavalry? I personally found it extremely useful during communist china playthroughs but I want to know if you have any suggestions
Very smart.
Cavalry is bad. Its basically equal to infantry at the start, but cavalry gets next to no bonuses from doctrine. Bicycle infantry is like a better version of cavalry, but you should probably disable support equipment if youre gonna do bicycles.
cavalrys big supply need is an issue
I have never disliked a video in my life. You are the first one, that should be an achievement.
Why
use your brain bub
Fair
Now tell em why armored cars are underrated
If you play different games (like Steel Division 2), armored cars are legitimately useful and can even be used for some "cheese" strats.
They are just a beginner trap in HOI 4 sadly.
Arty is pretty useless in MP if you play in europe, but it is pretty useful in China war since space marines are banned, and generaly it can be paired very good with GBP and green air, but when tanks comes in with 5k Breakthrough and 2k Soft and hard Attack infantry just dies anyhow which does make it a bit sad.
1. makes no sense to ban space marines. They can be countered cheaply by adding AA. They can be allowed.
2. china is low supply environment, and arty eats supply as fuck. inf is way more supply efficient.
Some countries do get special artillery bonusses esoecually when paired with rangers. You also shouldnt only use one template so artillery in divisions do have its use on some sectors.
Im going to copy from another comment:
"It buffs line artillery by 20% yes, but the problem with it is that you get it pretty late (doctrine and technology-wise) that artillery is pretty weak. Artillery gets comparatively weaker overtime, so assuming you dont immediately rush the ranger bonus (which you shouldnt), then there isnt any point."
Line artillery is generally a bad idea. If you want to specialize, there are so many other alternatives.
Hey, great video. Was wondering if the tank template you showeded at the bottom right of your intro segment was made in vannila? what doctrine was it made with and how could I recreate the tank? 740 hard with 450 soft and 900 break doesnt seem possible to me in vannila with medium TDS. Can get similiar hard atack going with fixed structure and putting heavy guns on it but then how do you get such high breakthrough? also I noticed that the cost of the template is pretty cheap.
Its vanilla yes. It uses GBP (i believe), so it would have similar base stats as without doctrine. Its definitely possible.
You shouldnt use fixed structure. You only need HV2. The reason its so cheap is easy maintenance and MIO.
@@sumzer_0 Thanks for the quick reply, now I was able to recreate the stats in template so thank you.Moreover I've heard going for SP doctrine for tanks could be better, or is GBP the better choice? What about soviet doctrine or is this tank not viable for the soviet side?
So basically artillery is good until 1939?
if gun 1 line arty good, if not gun 1 line arty bad. Support arty always good
I do it to free up a slot in my support equipment. It's like why waste a slot when I could just put anti tank there?
Support artillery is significantly better than line artillery. Your infantry should be pretty cheap, so there is no point in having a ton of support companies either way.
@@sumzer_0 I like having AT, AA, Field Hospitals, Engineer Companies and what ever else I can squeeze in. Having Line artillery allows me to make a good 21width. Last game I went with 28 but that was because I was playing Red world and All that matters is Health, Org, and how much damage you do in that mod.
Billions must NOT use field artillary
You can't tell what to do!
*Does an artillery only game*
My infantry has always performed better with one line arty battalion, so excuse me for taking this with more than a grain of salt
One battalion of line artillery does make your infantry division for the most part better. The problem is that the extra cost of putting in that line artillery could be used on other stuff that is way more effective than that line artillery is (like tanks or air).
@@sumzer_0 I'll maintain the opinion that a balanced approach is better, but it's still just that. My opinion. Your analysis still makes sense.
@@lolloblue9646 Yup, good to hear.
What other mods would those be for the rebalancing. Vanilla is making me tie a noose for myself.
These mods are multiplayer competitive mods, so they arent that fun in singleplayer.
Some mods that have balanced artillery (IMO): LW, TFB, (Horst, Oak) and more.
the infantry claim sems really dubious cus infantry equipment is usually stolen from annexation not self made.
ur really saying you dont produce ur own guns and just steal them from other countries when you annex them?? xdddddddd
the problem is the manpower arty es better in soft atk per manpower
i keep hearing the same thing from good players but so far adding a lot of artiliery is the best way for me to attack enemies in shit infra/terrain/supply, like south american jungle or africa.
adding tanks to inf wouldnt be better there would it??
also what is best div for attack in ^^ said regions
There are a lot of alternatives. Remember that artillery also uses a lot of supply. Tanks are actually still viable, but you would probably need flame tank, and maybe even rangers as well.
Special forces is probably a good idea. There are a lot of rivers as well as jungles in south america. In the marine doctrine you can get a really good bonus to jungles to your pioneers, which can help.
I did like it, thank you for your video
Why when making a division template, people start a second column of battalions before filling the first one?
Because it looks better. Its only cosmetic, and doesnt change anything.
@@sumzer_0 Is it you? The most based man alive?
3:30 - How does maximum damage per width go down while soft attack per width goes up?
Maximum damage is organization * soft attack. Adding more line artillery will in most cases decrease organization more than it increases soft attack (in the formula), causing the maximum to go down, even though the soft attack goes up. You can try playing around with the numbers and coming to your own conclusions if you want.
have you tried swapping places of artillery and infantry
like
9x artillery with 2x Line infantry
Haha no. It would be fun to try. I have also thought about artillery only, like other YTers have done.
@@sumzer_0the horror
I KNEW IT, I KNEW ARTILLERY WASNT WORTH OUTSIDE SUPPORT
You never factored in manpower cost. What about scenarios with low manpower? Arty costs half as an infantry battalion.
Thats a fair point yes, but its actually not as impactful as the cost of artillery. I'll copy my response from another comment:
"Manpower issues are much easier to get around than IC issues are. IC is, and will always be the most important thing in hoi4 to optimize. If you really do struggle with manpower that much, tanks are much better. Even something as space marines could work if you think you are limited. There are no countries that are incapable of doing the necessary research required for a decent tank division."
Thanks for the reply. Good stuff!
you forgot the supp bat Ranger.
In my opinion line art. scales alot better whit rangers and shoud only be playwhit it. it gives massive softattack bonuses for art. that makes it op. unlock 4x60 army exp in the special forces line and you will see what i mean :)
Ill copy what i wrote in another comment:
"It buffs line artillery by 20% yes, but the problem with it is that you get it pretty late (doctrine and technology-wise) that artillery is pretty weak. Artillery gets comparatively weaker overtime, so assuming you dont immediately rush the ranger bonus (which you shouldnt), then there isnt any point."
Also as you said yourself, 4*60xp. That is a lot, almost three doctrine.
Ok there are a lot of issues with your analysis:
- Line artillery gets a 30% attack bonus from techs by 1941, while inf only gets 10% and armor gets zero.
- Line artillery can have its SA boosted further by recon/rangers by 10%, armor cannot
- Line artillery has no penalties in harsh terrain, which is especially relevant with rivers
- Line artillery requires zero fuel
- Line artillery effectively requires no research, as you need to research artillery for tank guns and support artillery anyway
- Higher total damage per width is not the only thing that matters. The benefit of line artillery is they dish out their damage quickly, which means that you can punch through enemy lines before they reinforce, decreasing the total number of enemy divisions you have to fight
- Line artillery is still 3 times cheaper than your "cheap infantry tank" per battalion. Keep in mind that you only need 36 artillery per battalion versus 50 medium tanks.
- Line artillery on defense will crit enemy attacking units due to twice the damage per width versus infantry. Damage over enemy breakthrough is worth 4x as much as other damage so your divisions will be devastating to the enemy.
- Due to how organization is calculated, 2 line artillery battalions does not hurt your organization as much as 3 tank battalions, so artillery is comparatively friendlier to allowing your infantry units to remain combat effective even if you add a lot of them.
In my mind 6 inf + 2 line artillery + 1 support artillery, with rangers, flame tank and engineer support is the optimal division for absolutely dominating enemy lines on the cheap. They push through everything including mountains and rivers.
Ok, lets do this point by point.
- All of these bonuses are considered in my calculations. So it doesnt really matter.
- All of my templates have recon. Armor is still significantly better lmao
- This is just wrong. Line artillery has debuffs in forests and jungles, as well as rivers.
- Ok?
- This is the opposite of what you said previously with the bonuses to artillery. Tank research is slightly more yes, but still worth it.
- As said in the video, there are problems with this as well. You yourself will lose battles as well. Total damage per width is the best way to calculate stats. Of course there are other metrics that help, but none that can fully replace it.
- My example i compare 1 medium tank battalion versus 3 artillery battalions. And i argue why its still better.
- On defense you will crit either way. Dont see your point.
- again, i never argued for 3 tank battalions. Dont know where you got this from.
- 6/2 is an insane ratio, and will cost you a lot of losses. I have tested this before (and won against other people), but its still really bad.
- Higher total damage per width is what "dishes out damage" quickly. Adding line arty will often not add SA/w or even decrease it, which does the exact opposite of what you say. 6/0 with support companies perform better offensively using superior firepower than any infantry comp of larger width using artillery using superior firepower. You might not like that. You might realistically conclude it's stupid or ahistorical. I would agree with that, even. But it doesn't change the reality of HOI 4.
- Artillery do, in fact, have terrain penalties relative to infantry.
- Infantry divisions crit attacking infantry divisions in most cases regardless of line artillery.
- Real divisions use support companies, which penalizes line artillery.
@@TheMelnTeam The problem is that small divisions don't play well with percentage bonuses such as the one from flame tanks and rangers, which are absolutely broken overpowered to the point of being essential for any kind of optimized infantry build. Firepower across rivers and in bad terrain is what matters the most, and flame tanks alone literally make your divisions 40-50% stronger attacking over river into mountains (remember, "10%" river/mountain attack actually increases it by ~20% because of the low base percentage), all for the cost of 1 steel and some oil and barely more IC than a support artillery battalion, so it is absurd to contemplate not using them- unless of course, you're fighting somewhere where your divs will run out of fuel. To get good SA on such big divisions you need line artillery.
Don't get me wrong, giant 10w or even 9w/8w stacks with superior firepower are basically optimal for defending due to their ridiculous org, but bigger divisions with GBP and percentage bonuses are stronger on the attack.
Also smaller divisions level generals slower. You can get some ridiculously powerful generals by grinding on the enemy lines with 24 big divisions of ~35 width each.
@@sumzer_0 Hold on ... since when do we care about combat width?
If you're going to argue that 24 width is SUPERIOR to 14 width because it's 3% more cost efficient I don't even see why we should even bother in the first place?
Even without mass assault reducing Inf combat width, there always was (and still is I think) a reasonable argument that focusing intensly on combat width was pointless because the debate between big chonky and small tiny unit was always focus on width and NOT on IC ratio
Seriously why does no one compares the stats through an IC ratio?
Just wanted to say that there is an artillery trait for generals. I don't know if you can select it or if it's only on some generals.
Line artillery is just so inefficient.
cap
Not if manpower is your primary constraint
@@Tommuli_Haudankaivaja he said manpower is a constraint? Think Bhutan
@@Torantes Ah crap. That's what happens when I reply mid work. If manpower is a problem, go for tanks. They are much more manpower efficient.
Growing up is learning taureor was right
很不錯的研究，但是只考慮戰鬥編制的寬度效率似乎有點偏頗?
單就三點來說，我就我的經驗來說、單純9/0、9/1的差距：
第一就是戰鬥寬度，以防禦來說 較小的戰鬥寬度需要更多的部隊去守，一個砲兵可以增加隊伍寬度減少必要的部隊數量，在面對更大的攻勢面前還有著更好的防守優勢，且減少損失；根據 平均戰場約是70+35(現行版本)，21W的部隊只要五個防守達到最佳值
第二是計畫加成，更高的攻擊值能夠吃到的加成便越大，尤其是單部隊推進的時候，需要更高的攻擊支持，這點在突破部隊(尤其是有特種存在)身上更明顯，不總是會塞滿的剛剛好的寬度去進攻；作為防守也是，可以吃到更高的防禦加成
第三是生產價值與人力分配，砲兵可以更少的人力與更高的火力加入戰場，減少人力損失，這點在更需要節省人力的國家更明顯
說實話，HOI 並沒有完全的給出正確的價值，像是一千人的部隊只有100把槍、攻擊力上升的也只有10 而非 6*100，砲兵也不是 36*40的殺傷力
裝甲坦克，也是非等性計算的，所以還是只能看遊戲給出的設定
The translation is not the best, but i will try my best in responding properly.
I dont see why it should be a goal to fit less units in each battle. It makes it more simple yes, but if you lose out on stats there shouldnt be any point. Adding line artillery increases IC losses as i pointed out in the pinned comment.
Planning bonus, as all attack bonuses, will increase the max damage by the same amount no matter the attack value. 10 organization * 40 soft attack and 40 organization * 10 soft attack, both increase by the same amount when soft attack is multiplied by for example 20%.
Artillery costs more IC, which could be used other places. Manpower is generally easier to get around than IC is. If you struggle a lot with manpower, you should consider using more tanks.
If translation messes up: IC is production cost.
@@sumzer_0 An advantage of 2 vs 3 width battalions is to form a 20 width division, two battalions are needed for the same width as three. In this case, two artillery battalions need 1000 manpower. Three infantry battalions need 3000 manpower. Artillery does more damage, for significantly less manpower. If playing a major, the IC needed for artillery is available, while manpower may be harder to come by, depending on the nation. Superior firepower gives plenty of bonuses for frontline artillery players.
Artillery is semi-unique in that it requires IC but no fuel. Tanks, planes, warships, motorized, etc all require fuel. IC can be poured into artillery to increase combat effectiveness without considering fuel. This leaves more fuel for other uses and requires less fuel infrastructure.
@@sumzer_0 謝謝你的回應，讓我回答
減少單位在戰場上有三個好處，將軍的統領上限、巨大戰線上出現單一部隊的防禦薄弱點、減少防禦時無法及時補員的狀況(即overrun)
相同的戰線上，同樣24個部隊，9/1的部隊會有更佳守備
計畫進攻可以這樣計算嗎? 我不太確定，但 突破敵人防線會需要更強大一點的部隊這點沒錯吧? 9/1的部隊 攻擊力比較高，而組織度也沒有低很多
很多HOI的玩家一直推崇的便是攻擊力便是一切了
坦克，當然，甚至一個輕坦都更好，需要進攻，我會選擇製造裝甲部隊，然後放棄步兵讓他們完全充當填線部隊，但這就有點捨近求遠了，我們討論的火炮的價值對吧?
而且坦克的IC 更高，油料等問題也在後邊
真要追求完美部隊，又是另外一回事了
@@InternetPerson-ij3fh This doesnt make any sense, you dont want to have something that takes more width. You want less width, not more.
No. With a major you have more than enough IC for tanks, which is what you should be doing. Superior firepower does NOT give bonuses to line artillery, i explained this in the video.
More artillery does not always increase combat effectiveness. This is just false.
@@蔡林翰-v2m In reality this isnt a huge issue, because you will have other units that can actually push. The advantage of small units is mostly on the defensive anyways.
9/1s are still decent. The problem is late game, and that there are other units that cost a lot more IC, but that are a lot more efficienct as well. Just because many people like attack, doesnt mean you should get as much as possible.
That is what most people do. They cheap out on infantry and spend most on tanks.
It Always depends on, what your country can provide and what it lacks. When U have no manpower, infantry spam is not gonna work - you need to make stronger (push)division, even if it costs more/is slightly inefficient.
It also takes very long to get more then 1 tank as a minor. And air is early completely useless as minor because:
1. you need the production for the basic needs
2. couldn't contest air against a major anyway so ALL of this production would be useless
Usually when I play minor, I go for heavy inf to stomp my enemy's and only start tanks and air in mid/ to late game when I have factories concurred
nah. You can start throwing out tanks with 1938 tech. You can rush it, most trees has research speed for med armor. You don't have to throw out a high IC tanks all the time. Just make some small ones (~ double the IC of artillery) and cook with cheap, bad but not terrible tanks.I tried doing this on no-mountaineers Austria run in elite(which has longer research time and 60% decrease in mil output) and it was vital to capture supplies. Wouldn't recommend, tho.
Manpower most of the time shouldn't be a problem. You ought to get right MA and get 5% recruitable combined with guerilla if you want to play it optimized.
@@georgfriedrichkaiser ye 38 Tanks Work, but Its way faster to get some 7/2 and stomp your neighbours. Then you still can go tank while you also snowballed industry
Even in 41-42 you can completely crush the AI with some artillery Infantry
@@lennyauspacken If we talking vanilla hoi4 w/out any buffs then anything can cook AI tbh. People have done speedruns using a bunch of paratroopers and extremely high risk naval invasion, getting lucky to get result. Does that mean para and risky naval invasions are strongest in the game?
@@georgfriedrichkaiserofc the ai ist Trash. you talkin about "the strongest" but recommend tanks? Air + decent inf is way stronger. Tanks suck in Vanilla
Stellar video and everything I expected to see after watching your previous video. Granted that I'm a Japan player in Vanilla MP lobbies, what do you think the strategy would be now? Usually I'd do your typical line artillery divisions and marines and stack planning, but you bring up how Superior Artillery is viable now because of the bonuses it gives to support companies. Do you think that would outweigh the planning bonus and land night attack that GBP gives? As Japan, instead of putting IC into line artillery, what would it go into now? Tanks? Mech? Special Forces? Looking forward to hearing your thoughts.
And I'd assume you'd think the same with line rocket artillery. Although it does give more breakthrough than line artillery, I'd assume it's also just as inefficient since the bonuses that come with it come just way too late and there's better alternatives.
Great question. In vanilla, japan is very limited. You can do line artillery for china war, but any further than that, its not a good idea. Both GBP and SFP are viable. If you are playing in a good multiplayer lobby (without any planning debuff from spies), then GBP is probably the best.
Japan has very little IC, so its most important that you just survive any invasions, and try to steal as much rubber as you can. You should do air and special forces. Tanks and mech are too expensive for too little benefit as japan in asia.
What offensive divisions would japan use then? Just 10/0 with support aa, arty, and engj? Or is there a better option?
@@justcausewhynot2483 That division would be a decent filler division. Preferably all of your attack units will be special forces. Since you need a massive garrison force, you should have a good amount special forces cap. Doing special forces doctrine should also increase the cap.
For the templates itself, id recommend a 13/0 mountaineer, and either 12w marines, or 36w mech marines (although just 36w could work too). If you go with 36 mech marines, remember that you have to force attack for it to work the best.
@@sumzer_0 Do you know the most effective way to convoy escort as japan, or any nation? I don't what the most ic efficient way is. Would roach destroyers that are just sacrifical be best, asw subs that have depth charges but no sonar/radar too keep cost down, or expensive asw destroyers that are intended to kill the enemy subs? Also what are some discord servers to join to learn about the meta? Thank you.
Don’t care still using it
Video is incomplete and ultimately falls flat due to failing to properly involve comparison to artillery only divisions, which is where line artillery really shines.
The math is pretty complex, but the short of it is: if you remove artillery from an artillery only division, the division ceases to exist.
Only because Pdox nerfed "paradrop capable" divisions with 0 line battalions in them (only support companies). Prior to that, artillery only divisions with no artillery both very much existed and had an incredibly noticeable use case...
Good points, but I'm still going to use line art, plus I'd do horribly in MP anyways good template or not.
What about line AT, line AA, SPA/SPAT(TD)/SPAA? I don't have or want the tank designing DLC
How do you design tanks for space marine though? Same design as you would for the striking mediums?
Generally you just need high soft attack breakthrough, and decent armor. Reliability and speed doesnt matter since its only one battalion (reliability's importance scales by amount) and infantry is 4 km/h.
Generally howitzers, 3 man turret, armor clicks, riveted should work pretty fine. Add radios or easy maintenance if you want, and HMGs if you have a lot of IC.
Nuh uh 1:1 ratio of infantry to arty battalions trust
I trust
Can’t we just have 7/2 inf back?
In the 6/0 division why dont you have anti air? (im just curious and would love and dont mind how in depth you go)
This isnt for a specific reason, and is likely a mistake. I think i just wanted to keep the recon so it shares the most with the other templates. In reality i would definitely recommend using support AA if you dont have very green air.
@sumzer_0 thanks for the explanation, I'm also curious why it's 6 divisions instead of 9.
@@VeryLittleGuy It means that the support artillery and rocket artillery has more impact. Since they dont take any combat width, they would have more impact on the overall stats when the combat width is lower.
its just a way of stacking as much stats as possible per width.
@sumzer_0 okay, that makes sense. Thanks for the explanations