This HOI4 Division Will Get You BANNED!
Вставка
- Опубліковано 14 бер 2023
- Support me on PATREON / feedbackgaming
Sub to my MAIN UA-cam: @DaveFeedBackGaming
Sub to my FEEDBACKIRL on UA-cam: @FeedbackIRL
Sub to MEMES channel: @feedbackmemes
DISCORD talk with me / discord
Follow on TWITTER: / feedbackgaming
Follow for TWITCH livestreams: / feedbackgaming
Business email: davefeedbackgaming@gmail.com
Produced by Duck Taped Studios:
- Twitter - / markoni1100
- Business Email - themarkoni1199@gmail.com
Edited by BlitztendoStan:
- Twitter - / blitztendostan
Thumbnail by Pluton:
- Twitter - / pluton943
#hoi4 #heartsofiron4 #hoi4guide - Ігри
In my experience attempting to do the achievement where you play Netherlands and don't lose any territory to Germans, Medium Tank Destroyer is amazing on the defensive. The armour and production cost stat's that you showed here are part of it, but when you don't need to worry about breakthrough you can make certain concessions in the design to make it both cheaper and more effective in the defensive role.
Absolutely. I prefer all around TDs in my infantry for attacking, but you're right. TDs get slept on far too much because of their specialized role. The thing is, if you are facing the thing that it is good against, then that's the right move. Dave is just more concerned about AI in SP and how to exploit its weaknesses in general, not for one particular situation or nation.
This is ecactly what I have done too - too bad that he didn't test with fixed turrets.
In this case wouldn't Medium SPAA be better?
@@magnusmagnusen why SP tho? only reason to use SPAA is in a fully meched out infantry or tank unit. Otherwise just use AA. And in singleplayer you can use just tier one of AA bc the AI is dumb.
@@jeremiahkivi4256 I suppose you do have to work it out, but it depends on the cost
"Wow that is not worth it"
"The heavy tank is superior in terms of cost effectiveness"
German engineers looking at the hull of the Maus delivered to them
Maus was super heavy, the Tiger & Panther was heavy tank class
@@AmUnRA256 I can hear German engineers still crying over their Tiger breaking down for the 10th time.
@@sik3xploit maybe you mean Tiger II? Which was at least 10t heavier but had the engine from Tiger I and was under powered in every other way?
@@AmUnRA256 Panther was classified as a medium tank.
@@patta8388 sure, but weight was heavy class
One of the experiments I have been running recently is running Space Marines as the Soviet Union with Medium TD. They have very similar armour, better defense than tanks thanks to their fixed turrets, and as you require less vehicles to use a battalion of TD than to use a battalion of Tanks and the fixed turrets are cheaper. A TD with decent armour and a regular gun can cost something about 450-470 PC per battalion
Edit: for reference, one Battalion is more than enough (or seems) to counter the German units with antitank and their own tanks, so it's a cheap investment (100 days of factory output at 1939 tech)
For Armor I use AA Tanks.
36 per division.
Normal tanks are nearly 40% more expensive.
Frees up a support slot and IC from AA as well.
Light tank recon can get its full Piercing value as well.
Convert from light flame chassis.
Here's are really, really important piece of context: Production Line efficiency. If you get to the 1939 Medium tank tech in 1939, you'll be at full efficiency cap in 1940 or at the 10.25 prod cost per armor point. if you get the 43 Heavy tech in 1943, the cost per armor won't be below the 1939 medium tank rate at the full production line efficiency till at some point in 1944. So it'll likely take you until 1945 to fully convert over to the new cheaper armor cost. In theory, the optimal is to run a small 1943 heavy tank line to build efficiency and use them for elite units and then roll them out once the efficiency catches up (but again this'll be late 1944). Overall? Racing to the 1939 Medium Tank Boys and putting them in production the moment you can is the optimal solution for the meat of the game.
Nice.
For Armor I use AA Tanks.
36 per division.
Normal tanks are nearly 40% more expensive.
Frees up a support slot and IC from AA as well.
Light tank recon can get its full Piercing value as well.
Convert from light flame chassis.
In my opinion the test would be more fair if you only add armor as long as reliability remains ~100%. Becuase a low realeabilty tank is basically gonna cost you more once it gets into action, hence the test my not be completely accurate.
Great video none the less :)
Not really. You take very little losses from attrition when you don't use a lot of equipment. You also don't really have to worry about it since reliability is overrated. Just don't abuse your divs by attacking bad terrain or not managing supply and you're fine.
Also it’s as if light tanks were made for speed while heavy’s are for armor and medium is the compromise: ergo you only compare them in one category mediums will do the best lights will do the worst
I hope this gets 20k likes. I'd love to see this completed with TDs and SPGs
Here's the issue, we've got partial piercing now- so now you need at least _double_ the armor over your opponents piercing value to be 'unpierceable'. Anything less than that is partial pierced, which doesn't get the full benefit- but there's not much difference between 60% and 80% pierced.
Even if you've got partial pen then you still get the 40% higher org damage even if you only reduce damage by 20%
@@victordiaz6892 I think I might be misunderstanding you, so let me explain what I think you are saying: "Even when the attacking division is being pierced, it still deals extra damage".
If that is what you are saying, then you are correct. You still deal bonus damage. It's definitely arguable that attempting to go unpierceable just isn't worth the effort, considering how much armor you need.
I didn't make it clear that I was comparing how much damage you take based on what percentage of pierced your division falls into, and that's my bad. Especially when I went on to say that there were other considerations than just armor
At 7:28, wasn't that the light tank image instead of the intended heavy tank preview?
One thing that should be remembered about light tank recon - you can add those to paratroopers and put dozer blade plus high veocity for more at and piercing or support gun for even more soft attack. Works wonders to hold for main army
Also you forgot easy maintence to decrease production cost and increase reliability
I put on paras (20 width) support arty, rocket support, LT recon (dozer blade, support gun, sloped armor, max welded armor or cast armor, easy maintence and side skirts), engineer and aa company. With superrior firepower it’s hard to root out those paras from supply hubs before main forces arrive
Ooo, I like it. :D
You should get some serious kudos from Paradox for teaching players how to play HOI4 in spite of Paradox's paradoxical gameplay mechanics.
You know it's gonna be a good Feedback video when the spreadsheets come out
And Cloak71
I've been wondering if a space marine-cavalry division could be good in the early game for smaller nations. It's a bit more production because cavalry need more guns, and you'd need more engine on the tanks, but you could use the extra speed to do better maneuver warfare. Of course, after the first few wars, it'll fall behind because cavalary don't get boosted very much by doctines, and because you may have gained the production capacity for mechanized. Anyway, just something I've been wondering about.
Can you make a video on when and how it is optimal to add tanks to a division template, and what kind of tank works best on which kinds of templates? Because I've seen tons of videos about how the different tank types work, but very few on how to actually implement them effectively in the middle of a war.
I use infantry divisions pushed into armor divisions by adding just enough armor while playing as German. You go down the mechanized warfare tree, and all of your divisions are armored division, The bonuses to org make a huge difference, you can wipe the floor with every enemy you face by 1940. The difficulty between light vs medium is a thing and either way you will be fighting with under-strength units at the beginning of the war in 1939. You have to have the production and the research to do mediums in time for 1939 using all of the tricks in the book. Less so with lights. The other thing is that I don't go the super cheap route, I try to get the division soft attack high without using too much artillary because of the resource constraint, so I build tanks with good soft attack that don't use more than steel early one. Later, after the Allies have been crushed in 1940, you can start building lots of artillary and tanks that use strategic materials.
The other thing you have to be careful about is oil, you need a good reserve of oil and production before going to war with this type of army. Any time you have to push up the points on engine means using more oil, a lot more if you have to put a bunch of points to get it past 4kph.
You kind of need medium or heavy for spacemarines. Cost effective might be cool, but the point of the marines as mentioned is to provide armor to overpower piercing of the enemy divisions, another point is using TD for bunkers and enemy tanks
Loving the template videos!
I was just thinking about implementing and testing this but mechanized, inspired by Stryker BCTs
Thanks Dave!
I wouldn’t use flame tanks because then I’d need two separate production lines for tanks.
Great content as always. Can do one more film with marine management explained.
One template I’ve only ever managed to do a few times is a 8-3 mountaineer division (25 width, perfect for mountains) but I had heavy (or superheavy, i dont remember, prob heavy) spgs for arty. Lemme tell you, heavy tanks always feel so unapproachable because making one that not only outperforms a similar medium tank but also can keep up with a tank template (8 km/h for me personally, depending on motorized access, might go 6.4 for cav instead, or just 6 if it’s an early/defensive template) but when you don’t need to worry about making the tank faster than infantry, all of a sudden you can make a heavy tank with well over 100 armor for under 20 ic.
A 1936 light tank with 30 armor when used as armored recon gives a 20w infantry division 5.5 armor. 1939 infantry equipment has 5 piercing, 1942 I.E. has 10. All artillery have 5 piercing.
You can design a tank with 30 armor that has a production cost in the ballpark of 7.5 production(166 cost). The recon and movement speed boosts are an added bonus.
I did a 30 minutes of hel run and started slotting in med tanks for my shocktroopers. It worked way better than I could've expected. I haven't really encountered anything that it struggles with either. It swiftly dismantled Germany and russia once they were fully mobilized
I like playing right opposition Russia (I know, weird favourite path) and making 42 width space marines woth medium tanks is just a monster since you can start building them in 1938 so you have about 3 years worth of production of the same module.
You can also add dozer blades to the tanks to get a whole extra entrenchment which is fantastic for defensive divisions. I used them in a recent French run
What do you do with France's foreign assets in Africa and Asia?
@@circleofsorrow4583 Send them to the metropole, convert them to normal inf.
@@circleofsorrow4583 You abandon them to burn so you can push through the beneloux
I never understood why they call it space marine, it's just combined arms
PA on vanilla template feels illegal.
i mean owb used to have vanilla template
What is PA?
My go to is the anti air medium maxing speed in the engines and wheels so you don't have to increase the engine and max armour as much as you can to get to 4kmh without leveling engines. This way you maximize efficiency by combining two lines of production and you make the tank something more that just a shield. When it comes down to the type of armour that you use and if you add sloped, just do what your industry can. You might need to go go cheaper in the earlier models to fill your divisions but you might just use normal interwar mediums, go cheap to mass produce and then when you can do good mediums just transform them into cheap interwar medium flamers for the stat boosts.
It would have been interesting to see the benchmark of piercing you want to beat at the different points, too.
nice to see you use spread sheets(uh oh!) , mediums are the meat and potatoes , i think you done good job:)
Very much always went mediums anyway, but looking at the late game I would also mention that infantry gets anti-tank upgrades adding piercing anyway. So that would make having heavies over medium maybe a bit more important if you needed to pivot to them.
Like you said though, at that point it is almost over anyway, you should be wrapping up and I am not sure you would be able to produce an effective amount of heavy tanks by the time it is needed.
TL;DR, I agree that medium tanks are the go to, this just reaffirms my past beliefs. Great work though. Thanks for the vid
I've tried Light Tanks + Infantry as the Soviets.
The defence worked well, the numbers look bad for the first few day's of the battle but almost all the defensive battles I won.
When it was time to push...OMFG it was horrendous.
Lately I've been making dirt cheap Mediums and converting them to proper tank's.
Than add 1 battalion to an 18w Infantry and as production allows I add more until I reach 30w.
Once the Infantry are supplied make a proper Tank division for pushing, Infantry are best at Defence and Support roles.
But sometimes you've just gotta push to the Urals on aggressive because you just need this to be over now.
I can attest to heavy flamers usefulness, i slapped those bad bois on my mountaineers and the cut thru the ai like knifes thru butter, didn't even need proper tank div cause they were so good.
I think the reason this happens with armor vs production cost, is that the % modifiers for armor benefit from a higher base stat of armor, so the more armor you have, the more reason to get casted armor + sloped armor. Also, if you're min-maxing armor on one tank model, it might be better to have no other modules on it, and maximize miscellaneous stats on other tanks or motorized, mechanized, etc, in the division, for a higher average stat spread overall. Of course, this would also tickle that role-playing nerve in me, not just using 1 tank in my army :)
There is another’s aspect.
The old medium of tank division will be in your stocks just waiting to be a cheap change as a infantry support vehicle! Lots and lots of cheap old ones.
Now, I’m very new to the game, but usually I use light tanks because of the ability to make tons of them, as well as their speed.
So eight inf ,six medium tank, one spaag and self propelled arty then.
I'm not sure the ratio armour/cost is a very relevant metric.
I would rather try to build a more complicated metric approximating a "probability of being pierced" (which will roughly be proportional to the losses) divided by the cost. For instance, to keep the formula relatively simple, one could consider the case where 1/3 or the armies you face are infantry of your tech level, 1/3 is infantry of the previous tech level and 1/3 is infantry of the next tech level (to have a feeling on how your bataillon will do on its full lifetime). And there could be one column for infantry without AT as well as an extra column for infantry with support AT (inf with line AT or TD is probably not interesting as it will likely pierce just any space marine). Or you could consider an army made of 3/4 infantry and 1/4 medium tanks of the same tech level. Or take the actual German AI armies of the 1936 and 1939 scenarios.
Or another possible metric could be the "tech time before being pierced" (by units of a higher tech level) divided by the cost, which represents the flux of production you would need to update your undefeated tanks and keep up with the tech of your enemies. And in this case this could be computed on the basis of an homogeneous enemy, e.g. full infantry without AT.
PS: But I've not played much (or maybe not at all?) since partial piercing got implemented, so my view might be obsolete.
Attrition would eat single tank battalion, so that's why I put in two of them. Ideally yours division would have 2x more armor than standard enemy infantry division, and at late stage that is around 60 armor. With 66-70 armor it would give some effects against most infantry divisions with AT company. So that medium tank with 70 is a winner.
You should do an in debth tutorial on designing divisions.
8:00
I wouldn't be doing that if I were you.
A few things:
1. While using LT Recon to try and make space marines doesn't really work anymore, _it can help_ . Especially if you have the later tech you can probably get 10 armor with _just_ the LT Recon, on top of whatever your main battalion will give.
2. *Flame companies are best for their terrain bonuses!* They're especially nice because, in conjunction with engineers, they can *_significantly_* reduce your terrain penalties for your armored or mechanized divisions. Mediums give the best bonuses, so use them. Now, still stack on the armor, because it does help, just like the LT Recon, but go for mediums. Especially because the mediums you made gave just as much armor as heavies, but weren't nearly as expensive.
Which sort of leads to
3. You're going about this *_all wrong._* Now, I hadn't even started playing the game when the "Super Heavy Tank Destroyer" for your space marines was falling out of fashion, but that's what I'd be going for here. In my humble opinion, in making this video, you forgot *A KEY COMPONENT* of a prototypical "Space Marine": the *P I E R C I N G !* The point isn't just to give your infantry divisions *armor* cheaply, and force your opponent to invest rather heavily into either AT guns (support or line) or TDs, it's to be able to pierce your enemy's divisions! That's why SH TDs were used! Pre-BBA, you only needed, IIRC, *12* per battalion, and they gave a *boatload* of armor AND piercing/hard attack, because you'd attached a battalion of, IDK, Obj 704s or Jagpanzer E100s or T95s to your division, and they were basically invincible to enemy armor (when supported by infantry, anyway), and could easily take out any enemy armor.
So ya, I'd rather see a video that looked into making "infantry support" (aka maxed out armor b/c only need 4km/h max speed) Tank Destroyers, and what that might look like. If you're building a heavy tank hull, you'll *always* be paying more IC (PC?) than mediums or lights, that's kind of the _point,_ it's only really worth it if you also put a big honkin' gun on it for breakthrough, piercing, or soft/hard attack!
im not sure about the wheeled suspension cus of the -30% hardness but clearly i dont think it matters too much but still still an off chance
If we're referring strictly to Germany. One thing to consider is that Germany already has the 1936 Light Tank researched. Production cost is important but even more so production efficiency and exceptionally more so how soon you can begin producing it.
I think a "Race to the Blitzkrieg" esc test would be needed to see a 1936 Light Tank Space Marine vs a 1938 Medium SM. How many divisions can you fill out with these tanks and then how effective are they to capitulate France in a vanilla WW2 game. As after France the game can go any direction.
Also I don't recall if the Super Structure reduces production cost as well, which would help if we're just going for an armor stat.
Put a juicy auto cannon on it and boom.
Auto-cannons are nice, as well as anything else that gets your tank design at least 2/3 the Soft Attack in a 2 combat width tank battalion that you get from a 3 combat width towed artillery battalion. You get at least the Soft Attack per Combat Width that you would expect from towed artillery, and you get more Breakthrough, and you get more Piercing, and you get a lot more than the zero Armor that towed artillery would give you.
The big downside of adding a tank battalion instead of another towed artillery battalion is that your division with a tank battalion (or with any other fuel consuming unit) can run out of fuel and slow down to an easy to surround or overrun 1 kilometer per hour, but that problem can be mostly avoided by having a module for extra fuel capacity in your tank design, and by making sure that your national fuel reserve does not drop to zero.
I prefer the 1936 heavy tank chassis for space marines. It's only possible to produce the basic medium chassis in usable quantities until 1939 if you tech rush it. I prefer the heavy variant. You can start building them from the start of the game. From early on you'll have sufficient production efficiency. With France I usually do a space marine strategy. I build basic heavy tanks with lots of armour, medium howitzer for soft attack and a maximum on breakthrough. It's easily possible to get 72 space marine devisions until 39 if you start building mills from the start.
good work
Part 2 please 🤞🏼
What mods or DLC are you using? I am asking because i dont have tank designer where i can pick turrets, machine guns etc. All i have is create variant window where i can spend experience on armor, reliability, main gun or engine points.
It's really easy to get above 45 AP in your division template from AT and AA.. Is it still actually worth making Space Marine divisions as a few Majors will just be able to pen them period. Especially early/Mid game?
This is why i dont bother to up armored too much above piercing number of standart 7inf 2art when doing space marine build, its way to expensive to build and too easy to pierce, i'll be better off combine it with massive breakthrough/defense and/or soft attack instead of went full armor, at least they can have the armor bonus vs standart inf template and not totally useless when its armor is pierced
You had me at spreadsheet
Weird. I though this would have been for Old World Blues.
Spaa are only 36 per battalion so they would be more cost efficient for adding armor than any of these designs.
I think this is a very good analysis for the most cost-effective way to get armor, but I think people miss the advantage of the slither stats. The hardness, breakthrough, and attack increases can be a massive advantage in addition to hardness.
Yeah I just recently figured out that, even if my units can zoom past enemy lines. what gets them encircled and killed 90% of the time is that they don't have enough org or breakthrough.
Actually, for the 1943 medium and heavy, the armor and IC cost go up equivalently
Once again showing that medium tanks are amazing
...here i am, looking at these spreadsheets and wondering about the run i did a month ago. "Ou i'll make light space marines becouse my economy can't put out more.."....now i realize just how stupid i am xD
Is this right at 3:29 the light tank is 1936 model, the heavy is 1934 model and the medium is interwar. Does this not skew your results especially when you then moved to all 1936? Another point I wondered what's the value for reacon at 1936 and 1939?
I enjoyed the video it was interesting to see the calculations
Those are just the way it looks, are they not? The stats are still there
@@hoticeisnice1354 no, he used interwar medium, basic heavy and improved light tank. Different levels of research
@@Dover939 Ah, I get what they mean now. Yes, that does make things confusing. You would have to look at the tech tree and the spread sheet to make some sense of it
Is that the power armor battalion logo in the thumbnail?
You might as well use a 1936 no tech medium tank, instead of the 1939 flame tank.
The amount of amor tanks give should be based on the ration tank to infantry, its broken as hell what you showed.
What do you think about Italy exclusive Assault Battalion Support Company ?
I just hope heavy SPG can get more, I mean you are putting a ~200mm gun on a chasis, that's like shore bombardment level firepower already
I need to get no step back
why did feedback use power armour divisions from old world blues in the thumbnail?
It's a space marine
It’s so annoying when Germany spams out 40 width Power Armor divisions with too much defense
Feedback breaking out the spreadsheets…been hanging out with 71Cloak I bet…
British Seinfeld “What’s the deal with all these tanks!”
I almost always use riveted armor rather than welded as the increased cost didn't seem worth the extra armor (at least on regular tank divisions). Why is welded armor considered the best value / meta? It obviously helps if you are trying to stack armor high, but is it worth it? If it is, then why not cast?
Heavy tanks also cost chromium making them more expensive in trade
Do light tanks have an advantage of using up less fuel compared to other tanks?
Nice, thanks for doing the math. In a way it's simple: Light tanks are the cheapest, heavy tanks are the best-armored and medium tanks are the most cost-effective because they are almost as armored as the heavies and almost as cheap as lights.
The open problem is, how this regiment armor number turns into a combat advantage. For that it matters how much piercing your opponents field. Paying 40% more for 10% more armor can still be effective if those 10% are exactly what you need to not get pierced. And also due to the way total armor for the battalion is calculated, it also matter whether you want to use a tank for an infantry of mechanized group and how big they are.
just check space marine setup with medium tank as anti-air
Is this better than lvl5 prod cost reduction mech inf?
Honestly it’s also largely about resources, light tanks only take steel.
you said cast armor adds 20% armor, but according to the tooltip it is 20% more production cost and *50%* more armor, which sounds pretty strong
Would it make no big difference if you strapped on medium howitzers to a tank design
anybody have an issue with mussolini's ethiopia missions not firing? I've played like 3 games of italy so far and i can't advance through the tree because even though I kill ethiopia the missions never fired, so my focus will not auto-complete
PC: *_"to explode before 1943 or not to explode before 1943"._*
*_THAT'S THE QUESTION._*
And Tank destroier? Its using smoler number in units in divisions.
Shouldn't I be able to use SPG or SPAA for space marines? If I'd use them I might need one support less.
Would armored cars perhaps be useful if the primary goal is adding armor to an infantry division?
No, they're awful. They dont give as much and they're practically unmodifyable crap light tanks.
I mainly use them in my military police division. They're easy to produce and offer good suppression
@@alpharius6206 you can add armor to them in the production menu, and they are cheaper than light tanks, no?
7:27 Russian Propagnda when:
45.6 Armor!!!!!!
20.6
You forgot the modifiers, heavy tanks got some really bad terrain modifiers, it's just not worth it to put heavy tanks on all your space marines.
Brooo.... I saw the Thumbnail and I thought He was doing something about Old World Blues 💀
Please bring us another spreadsheet
One of the factors that you should consider is fuel usage. If you add a tank battalion, it will consume oil. So if you are a Japan then your industry goes to a potential enemy.
I feel like this is partially out of date, due to partial piercings. So you would need to make the tanks in the spezz marines have slightly more armor than what Dave has done here in his calculations.
Also TD > Regular tanks in both cost, and ability to put a big fat gun on them and still keeping them relatively cheap.
So, are they good for attacking too or only defense?
What's the point of super heavies, then? Seems like they're just there to sound intimidating.
Yes. The 1939 Medium with the extra armor and speed and throw in an interwar light flamer support is the cheap ass space marine.
Why is 10 armor the standard? What informs this decision?
Against the AI I just rush mediums and once there max out a medium tank and a medium flamer and just build them the whole game until I get to moderns if the game lasts long enough. There's already enough crap to research in this game that constantly spending research & changing production lines & the templates isn't worth bothering with. Too much micro.
What about Medium Flamers?
Light recon extra speed
Heavy flamer extra breakthrough
1 Heavy Tank
This is the best for armor
Less at first but upgrade the heavy and make 2Vs
I prefer heavy flamethrower because of the incredibly overpowered terrain bonuses
I always feel weird when you say the game is over by like 1943 because thats around the time im fighting most of wars and having alot my fun. Though I get what you mean. If your playing well the game should be over here unless your decide to start ww3 which tends to be more tedious then fun. Its a shame the AI so often cracks and collapses off the first encirclement you do.
It's over in terms sof production. By the time you get your 1943 tech into efficient degrees of production capacity the big wars are pretty much over in most games.
It’s about multiplayer games
Bro forgot easy maintenance💀
Everything is 5% cheaper. 😏
0:25 I am in his Video :D
hoi4 need MkII POWER ARMOR
7:26 the wrong picture