[HoI4] Why 40 Width Divisions Are Better Than 20 Width
Vložit
- čas přidán 26. 12. 2017
- In this video I detail why 40 combat width is the optimal layout for you division designs. I also discuss the edge cases where 20 width divisions can be better.
-------------------------------------------
Follow me on Twitter: / remansparadox - Hry
![[HOI4] An In-Depth Guide to Resistance and Compliance](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/lnEY4xEKoqE/mqdefault.jpg)
![[EU4] War Academy II: Troop Quality & Advanced Combat](/img/n.gif)
"Those parts of the planet don't typically matter that much." -Reman, on Southeast Asia.
Oh oh oh! You forgot the South America! And Western Africa!
IK He’s talking about singapore and the spice islands, the single biggest stacks of rubber in the world...
Trygve Plaustrum 2nd rule of war: never fight a land war in Asia.
(1st is don’t invade Russia during winter.)
@@liamgriffin218 here is the official ranked list for most classic blunders:
1. Never fight a land war in Asia
2. Never go up against a Sicilian when death is on the line
@@WillStrong7 Fighting a war in Russia, whilst being in the middle of winter is the real Classic Blunder. Napoleon and Hitler both made this mistake.
So build nothing but Battleships, build massive 40 width divisions because they're more efficient in production cost and actual battle capacity... man, this game is less complicated than I initially thought. :P
It's really one of the most casual Hearts of Iron games yet and easier to master than EU4 or VIC2.
+Erwin Rommel
Vic2 is a simple game imao, the combat in Vic2 is awful though just spam lots of artillery, a few engineers and infantry and you are good to go.
and carriers
darkfireslide make more vids
yeah, but hoi 3 breaks my computer xDD
Tho, if you want a smooth game that doesn't destroy your computer, hoi:DH will do good. Hoi3, but smaller
So to summarize -
40 combat width is better because it follows a simple rule in warfare - it is better that you focus all of your attacks on one target than equally upon all targets. A 40 width division essentially guarantees that two 20 width divisions will focus their attack on one target, contrary to two independent 20 width divisions which split their attack 50-50 if there is more than one target.
Moreover, 40 width also has double the defense, so in a 2v1 scenario it will dodge most of the 20 combat width divisions' attacks while dealing a huge amount of damage to their organization, due to having double the soft attack than the 20 width divisions' defense.
In terms of production, you use the same amount of support equipment for 20 and 40 width divisions, so it actually is more efficient to have 40 width divisions.
watch this
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
80 combat width devisions
I don't get how u can interpret this into beeng realistic.
If u didn't get the msg: 40 with is ONLY better because divisions pick their targets at RANDOM. very realistic ...jea... because rule and warfare... and foucs all attacks and stuff ... jea .. that's why ....
It is certainly realistic - and perhaps historical given an ignorant enough commander.
Ok, historical given a ignorant enough commander maybe, but certainly not a "realistic feature" nor satisfying gameplay.
AFAIK you can only have 75 (pure artillery) in vanilla hoi iv, but 80 width is probably not only possible but quite decent in millenium dawn.
It's not the size of the division that counts, it's how you use it.
Flimpeen Flarmpoon good micro >combat width
ooooooh snap!
You'll have a hard time breaking the front with shitty combat width
You can also micro when you have lots of unit with 40 combat width.
are you a politician? that statement was pretty empty tbh
You are so underrated man, I literally searched "Hearts of Iron 4 combat tutorial" and "division designer" and the results don't list you among even the top 5, even though you made the ONLY videos in youtube explaining combat mechanics and designing divisions based on the game mechanics rather than what you feel with your intuition. I was searching for something like this for some time now, nicely done!
Only game mechanics-based guide to naval combat as well, thank you much sir!
oh shit rayman was busy during christmas
main man ray
Who is rayman?
Honestly i have no idea, to me it reminded me of a movie reference, 'The Rainman' with Tom Cruise and Dustin Hoffmann. I have no idea if he actually was doing that though.
Main Man Ray!
The Abacus is mightier than the sword
The abacus IS the sword
I think you mean: smart attacks are mightier than battle plans
Sarrus you have never been at the business end of a MG42 have you?
I’ve found whoever wields the swords decides who wields the abacus
@@divusgaiusjuliuscaesar4657 nah, not really, its more often than not the other way around
I usually play minor nations, so it's often hard to find the manpower and production to field 40 width divisions while maintaining a solid front. Having holes in the front is just asking to get your divisions killed :/
Poki#3 this is the ultimate counter argument to any claim that 40 width is objectively better. Obviously it puts out higher damage, but often it simply isn’t viable to produce for nations with lesser industry
Same here. From what I saw I think that you don't need to replace all your basic 20 width divisions with 40 width ones. Maybe include them in an attacking army composed of 10 (40 witdth) divisions, 8 motorized and 6 tanks.
Poki#3 buy your border is smaller because you are a minor so it’s better
That's also why they're "minor" ;) Generally.
well i am doing el salvador and after squezing every bit of manpower buff i could find i fielded about a total of 12-14 divisions and 4 of them are 40 width. so i say make a couple of 40 width to basically be slower tanks.
having trouble getting trough mexico and the usa since the usa managed to join a war vs me after its garuantee was cancelled after i created a faction...
As European major, sure, 40 width is objectively better. (would be nice if they fixed it by splitting damage proportionally)
Outside Europe, keeping 40 width per tile on frontline would run way over supply limit of pretty much everywhere.
Tomasz Węgrzanowski ai allies will abuse your supply limit with lots of troops anyway :(
"(would be nice if they fixed it by splitting damage proportionally)"
jea
would be nice if paradox got started on this whole thinking thing.
if someone read more of comment: ok i know im just rambeling and im way to angry about this, but this guy im commenting to just solved the whole GOD DAMN VIDEO and all my problems with the mechanic. and he explained it in less then a line with probably about 5-10 min thinking!?! probs to Tomasz, good thinking man, but its probably more evidence of incapacity on PDS's side.
I run it as Japan, you just put less divisions on the front.
What kills you is when you share a border with a faction member, the AI is not bright when it comes to supply limit and will screw you 20, 40, x width won't matter.
Otoh, if they did that you could spam 1 inf divisions (or 1 inf/support arty) since the organization is 10x higher than 20 width. Alternatively, have the divisions focus fire a random enemy each hour.
KasparOrange that would just change the unballance to the other side
The way it works right now is correct, larger divisions win more battles, nothing will change that
But, they can't be used anywhere, thats why they even have the supply limits
The water game is broken, with the bigger ship always winning, that is wrong
This is just right, because bigger divisions have better chances at winning an open fight
This is high quality, in depth analysis that I deeply appreciate. Even after ~500 hours, I hadn't learned any of this. Thanks a ton!
Ah yes i remember the days when i didn't know anything about this game, still used 18 w infantry divisions, Researched support companies but didn't use them, built only light tanks, and got capitulated by France as Germany when i tried to invade the Swiss and ram divisions into the Maginot and then wondered "hey why is everyone dying, Germany beat them in real life". Those where interesting times. Almost 450 hours later and i've come a long way. Still can't manage an Italy game for some reason though, must be the low org due to Pasta rations
You are on a roll recently Reman. Keep it up dude!!!
I'm just waiting for you to start one of your videos with "Hey everyone my name is Reman and this is my paradox"
By far the best and most instructive guide I found on CZcams! More of it please.
the general rule of thumb is 40 width tanks and 20 width Infantry, 40 width inf are just too weak to defend their org falls quickly and they too often fail to reinforce, it is improtant to note that the increased defence of 40 width hardly ever matters vs attacking tanks.
Really appreciate all the new HOI4 videos your making, keep it up :)
10 width > use for coastal defense and manning bunker lines, expansion in subsaharan Africa
20 width > motorized and/or cavalry, possible for intermediate low intensity theaters where 10 is not enough, but a mix of 10s and 40s is better, just start adding two or three 40s to the swarm of infantry 10s and you are good to crack the occasional nut.
40 width > everything else
Can you rewrite this? It's confusing
I think it is very simple and obvious. I can only add, you can use 20s if you do not have the points to create 40s. Don't expand piece meal. Stay on 20s until you get the full points to create a 40 width division in one upgrade.
I meant that i didn't got what you said, not that the width division is confusing for me
do you even understand what I am talking about?
About where to use every combat width
yo my boi uploaded
Damn can't even see your dot on the compass you're extreme something lmao
what are those four square things for anyway
LinuxLivesMatter it's a political compass. X axis is economical and y is social
Absolutely brilliant guide, thank you for making this.
Thanks man, all this HoI content has been super helpful.
Holy crap, i wish I knew this. I've been using the 20-width strategy this whole time...I'm glad I stumbled across this. Thank you.
12:40 Rienforce is not necessarily in favor of the 40 width. If you have two 20 width divisions rienforcing vs one 40 width, the 20 width also get to make twice as many checks as the 40 width. The result is that on average, one of the two 20 width will rienforce before a single 40 width would. Although a 40 width only has to make one check to rienforce entirely, the two 20 width can split the rienforcement such that one of them tends to rienforce fairly quickly.
Thanks, very informative & well presented!
Based upon this and the naval combat video I think we all get the idea. Bigger is always Better
Templarkiller But only build medium tanks. The other tanks are useless.
No light tanks are really useful since they are alot faster and they use less production, and materials. Heavy is where the big stuff comes which is good for forts etc. But they take hella lot time to produce
S8tan super heavies are usually the fort destroyers anyway unless the forts themselves contain a super heavy in it or have the defences to handle it even a super heavy tank will have a hard time on a level 10 fort head on properly manned etc. so tactics behind it and upgrates will get you somewhere.
Just spam cavalry and win the game
I knew something didn't add up about the argument for 20 width but I've never been good enough with the numbers and how they apply to articulate it right.
Well done.
This is great information man, thank you.
Nice job. Clears things up a lot.
I've been a slave to the 20 width model for the longest time. You've definitely made me think.
A lucid explanation. Thanks for that.
Good sir, you are actually the ONLY ONE that has delivered proofs to 40vs20 width discussion. I was thinking about testing all of that myself, buy wasnt sure how to do it. And You did it perfectly. I salute you!
There are two more things I would also want to know though:
-If defence is the easiest stat to stack, are smaller division better in defence, because the can still have more defence against multiple attacking divisions (Your test assumed equal attack/def/break, while in reality they would be different)
-How do superior firepower doctrine affects effects of smaller divisions having more support battalions (because the have much better soft attack in that doctrine)
So in a short, could you test how do 8x10 width, 4x20 width and 2x40 width infantry divisions + support artillery fare on defence? (small divisions of infantry should still have decent defence stat, and in case of fighting against 2x40 width divisions the chance of this two divisions focusing fire on only one division from eight are lower). If this turns out to have effect, could you test how effective are 10 width division of mechanized infantry with support artillery, rocket support artillery, superior firepower doctrine (each one of theese divisions would have really high defence stat, and combined they would have more attacks than 2x40 width divisions)
It's time for Reman the great to return and give us the ultimate combat width.
I normally like to run my infantry/front line defense divisions on 40 width while my tank/motorized/mechanized/speedy division on 20. it usually just comes down to how much of what I can produce.
edit: also I like to think of 40/+ width division as a late game item when you have alot more factories that produce the required equipment for said divisions
Hey awesome video very helpful i was just wondering is the support company consequential, when comparing 20 and 40 widths? If you have researched integrated fire support in the superior firepower doctrine and have both support rocket and support artillery in the division?
Thank you for this info! Suddenly i managed to break through the maginot line with "only" 48 Divisions and a little CAS........ Good job, that's ma boi :)
I'm not sure if this was covered in the combat video, but do generals only get xp when you use plans? Micromanaging my tank generals usually leaves them well behind the old guards and generated commanders who hold the front.
Otherwise, amazing video. Will be moving past my 20 width divisions as soon as I play
These videos are really great. I'd love to see your analysis of air combat. I'm really wondering if it's worth it to build heavy planes and CAS. I usually just spam fighters and carrier NAV.
Can you do a video on Close air support, are they worth it, how much damage do they actually do during a battle?
Lazergaz Spam out infinite CAS. They destroy organization.
Less useful in mp than before because of interception buff and more players using SPAA on their tanks.
extremely broken. it doesn't take a lot of cas to do a significant amount of damage, and are basically orbital laser canons that sometimes get shot down or disrupted by fighters. You don't even need full air superiority, as long as like 30% can get through, and only about like 20 will be shot down a day on low intensity (not to mention they also shoot down some fighters).
Essentially if the enemy has a lot of aa you may eventually run out, but it really doesn't matter because they won't have any air superiority as a lot of their production goes to aa.
That is definitely not the case. SPAA is so cheap to build it won't hinder plane production and you only need SPAA for tanks. Wasting production to put AA on infantry is not worth it. I have tested this and the SPAA helps to protect the tanks against CAS a lot. However, cas is extremely broken against non-SPAA tanks along with contested air superiority or better.
Currently CAS is not meta in multiplayer since the last major update. Winning the air war is all about who can spam the most fighters, if someone goes CAS they risk losing the air war plus it's very cheap for the opponent to put a few SPAA on their tanks to hard counter your CAS. Still very effective in single player against AI though.
Paradox games: We have complex combat mechanics that consider dozens of factors and bonuses to balance out dice throws and accurately simulate as many real world conditions as possible!
And 90% of the time so long as you have the most troops and the best guns you can ignore the entire system and still wreck nine kinds of face.
Please make more hoi4 content in the future, love your explanations
Its funny because although this game does have more intricate systems, usually like 99% of the times it comes down to make a few upgrades to troops and go, this game while i love it is really not that hard.
IOW they screwed the pooch. Truly pathetic they spent so much time, made it so "complex" and still fucked it up so badly and it ends up unrealistic as hell. Truly pathetic.
@Bitmap @Bitmap make me big boy.
@@GrumblingGrognard One of the main things I dislike about HOI4 is just how formulaic some parts of it feel. Division designing and combat is nothing more than just number juggling.
@@TomTheSaintsGuy that is all War games, because verything is calculated. The only difference is how it is calculated and what affects what. But all in all, every War game is spreadsheet made more bretty!
This channel deserves more subscribers
Hearing "Hello Hearts of Iron players" instead of EU4 is still weird for me even though your last 3 videos are HoI4 lol
This helps a lot! I only have 430 hours under my belt so I'm still breaking down combat in some ways; this gives me a good boost to my 'studies'.
I'm still confused on this though; When is it better to use Armour and/or Mechanised and when is it better to use Infantry?
There are three types of defensive stats in this game: breakthrough, defense and armour. You use your breaktrough stat to mitigate damage when you are attacking. You use your defense stat to mitigate damage when you are defending. You use armour in every kind of fight. Therefore:
You should use your armoured divisions to attack enemy lines, because tanks have high breaktrough stat (which is basically their defense while attacking). Infantry on the other hand has much lower breakthrough, for this reason it is highly suboptimal to use infantry as attacking force, because they take MUCH more casualties in offensive combat (the more enemies' soft attack exceed their defensive stat, the more damage they take). They do have higher defense stat though (which is their defense while defending).
If you don't exceed enemies' armour, go piercing until you do. If enemy exceeds your armour, go armour until they do not (mind that this is not always the cost optimal way to do things though).
So basically: optimal way is to use armour to only attack, use infantry to only defend, use motorised to quickly reinforce defensive position in newly acquired land and to quickly grab unoccupied provinces, cause those guys are hella fast. Watch out for armour/piercing ratio. Good luck!
Tanks are your best attackers and infantry is for holding the line in most cases.
+TacticalPrepper +Ennoia Ah, so I was somewhat on point. I use motorized exclusively for support companies, which I'm guessing is a big mistake on my part.
Thanks for the info!
You need to mix in motorized with your tanks otherwise they won't have enough org, putting infantry with your tanks instead of motorized is usually not a good idea since the division will move at the speed of infantry. The exception being mixing marines with heavy tanks to make "space marine" divisions, it makes a really beefy division that can break through rivers with no penalty. Just don't use it in multiplayer you will get kicked from serious game but it's a good way to cheese the single player campaign when you're new at the game.
Never use mechanized.
Great video just one question -> How much Organization should we go for? that tank division you showed had 20, isn't that super weak ? and between Infantry and Montanier wish should we have? and should a division have tanks + infantry?
Tank divisions always have low org because tanks have low org. The trade is that tanks have amazing breakthrough, which is org defence when attacking, so they might not have much org but they will lose it slowly when attacking. Defending they are worthless though other than to give some armour and piercing to infantry. Regular infantry also slows down tanks though so most tank divisions will use motorised or mechanised infantry, which increases the org and defence a bit in exchange for a little less breakthrough.
I'm curious if bonuses from doctrines can impact the choice between 10, 20 and 40 width. With the Superior Firepower doctrine you can get +20 organization and +50% soft attack on your support battalions, so if you can afford all of the support companies for 10 width divisions you should end up with good organization and soft attack. I'm just not sure if that outweighs the advantages of larger divisions.
perfectly clear explaination and not all the but muh xx width!! mumbling of so many other channels
Informative. Thanks.
i have played china, many many times, going back to the days of Hoi2, as the oddball that china is i have found that in Hoi4 my preferred set up is one army group with 7 generals and one field marshal of course.
one general has 30divs of 40 width
2 have 30divs of 20 witdth
and 4 have 30divs of 10 width
and some random tanks here and there
after the war with japan in late 38, and the civil war restart, this set up allows you to punch through Siberia with relative ease, and masmobi guerrilla tactics helps greatly, a must really, you can use the 40s to occupy rus armor, surround them with 20s, and 10s move quick to gaps and have great org to delay for the 20s and 40s to come help, even if rus has a early win against Ger you can still beat them it will just take 2 to 3 years longer.
or if the Ger beat the Rus, prepare for pain, then change everything to 40, you better make sure your field marshal has logistic wizard, and anti tank guns, might want to join the allies too, it just turns into a true cluster.
Like your videos a lot. Do you have any CK2 vids?
Hello, thanks for your 3 very interesting videos. Have you scheduled a video on Air Forces ? (a French fan)
@Reman's Paradox, gr8t video, explains a lot of hidden mechanics
Two things.
What's a good division template and can you do the air war next?
I think there might have been some changes to the combat in patches, could you do an updated video for 1.6? for both naval and land combat
Awesome analysis Reman. I've noticed 40 width divs fight better individually which is really important to break out of trench warfare and get the party started. And at the point when I've basically conquered Europe and am rolling onto Moscow/Berlin or whatever, I don't really give a shit if I lose equipment and men at a higher rate due to out of supply attrition.
Quick question i would really like you to reply. Related to your editing. How you do it? Make a script for voice over, record some related video clips. Next step? What goes first in your video sequence? First voice than cut video clips which apply to your voice or first video clips and than record voice? How you match video clips with voice over? I am struggling to find most efficient way to do it. Thanks a lot!
This video gave me a headache from confusion lol but it helped😂😂
Ooh, In the case reman's simple example with 2 small divs vs 1 big div, bigger division pretty much ignore all that they not engaging, thats dumb. Isn't that one div who dont attacked should get a bonus, similar to what "armor" bonus do (deal more dmg because can move freely)?
Thank you for this vid, it helps ! =)
I'd love to see an episode about the best land compositions and why. I like the game but I am far too casual a gamer to crunch the numbers myself.
Do you play any ck2 or victoria 2?
GreenFors I will give him my soul if he can solve the mystery of Vic2 economics.
What's wrong with Vicky II economy ?
Put every slider to the max
Benjamin .M pretty much this, just cream over rebels anyway, you need rebels to get better government and political control anyway
Vic2 economics is hard if your country doesn't have a good economy. With this in mind, playing biggies or majors shouldn't be a problem. Some smaller biggies might require a struggle, but if you manage to pull through it, it's gonna be easy afterwards.
Hi, shouldn´t you take armies from the same country and weapons for the comparison (yo could do it during a civil war). The different weapons could make a difference as well, right?
Just subscribed. Is this still perninent today (3 and half years on) or have the devs changed things in updates?
It was never pertinent, various key factors are ignored in this, and yes the devs have changed various things
Can you make a video about army composition, combat width and military technology in EU IV?
Reman, are you going to check over these dynamics after 2.0 comes out?
pls one about air combat
@@lenchewbacca what about navies, hah, can you explain it as briefly as you did about air?
@@mateuszbarton8831 completely doable:
Composition: Keep a healthy ratio of 1:3 as in for 3 screens per capital or 1:2:9 as in for each CV 2 captial and per capital (CV included) 9 screen. Each task group should be as small as possible except the Strike Fleets. Composition is important because this skeleton ratio assures no screening penalty from unbalanced ratio. Screen penalty can cause devastating torpedo runs to inefficient shelling.
SS: Latest Torps and Radar for Long range fleet and swap radar with snorkel to fight positions where you can have air coverage, like English Channel, Mediterrean, Black Sea basically every shore region with ally airbase.
DD: Four builds : ASW - Meant to counter subs, necessary gun AA and torp , rest are depth charges, generally will be used to find subs, so put sonar 2 ASAP and the best radar if it can add to sub detection. DD AA- change depths for AA, useful for Escorts (ASW and AA DDs mainly) AA suplements, (gun and one AA can be changed for DP). Miner/sweeper - just put the cheapest shits, they're only for outside combat so assign their fleet as never engage. Fleet Vanguard - Better gun and Best possible torps. Vanguard DDs meant to spam torps against poorly ratio'd fleet capitals. General rules for DDs - Keep the speed more than 36kn+ at the very least.
CL: 3 builds: AA - like DD just more AA. Recon: Cheap hull full on best Catapults, absurd at spotting so put on patrol. Fleet Vanguard: Best CL guns and best Armor. Keep the speed around 33kn. Vanguard CLs meant to hunt enemy DDs and weakly armored cruisers.
CA: only bother with this if heavy hulls are no go. Max 2 203mm guns, armor and AA. They sucks due to MtG. May be considired as CV escorts.
BC: Build for speed and run them for surface raiding fleets. not many main guns needed, but a better BC armor will be more useful. AA and DP secondaries would be more useful on this.
BB: Super Heavy Hull: 1 or 2 guns, FCS, Radar, AA and Secondaries. These BBs will be dominating thanks to their ridiculus armor. But can be a bitch to build. Normal hull: Best Armor, Best gun, rest are similar to SHH version. Attack value itself less important for battleships then Piercing power. Because non-piercing attack values dumped to 10% and it's against capitals means *S H I T* .
CV: Focus on hangar. CVs are portable airfields for open seas, so unless you're US or Japan, they're less needed. Especially for Germany. Pls no CV for Germany unless you beat Soviet by 42, as by only then CV would be needed. Plane composition? Depends on what you need, Air supremacy - Fighter heavy. Naval Supremacy - Nav bombers.
Lastly, best way to fuck up royal navy as Germany? *F U C K E N N A V A L B O M B E R S*
there you have it! Now it's 3 fucking AM here. Goodnight
@@gildedphoenix cheers mate it’s longer than I thought haha
Very good video, as always, but I stick to 20 width divisions as I only play single player and this way the game hoes some small sense of challenge. :) Going 40 width in SP is almost like cheating :)
I can't wait till you start the combat guides for Stellaris. :)
Can you change a division after it's been built? Like added or taking away battalions from it or tweaking its support units?
"Those parts of the world don't typically matter" *Laughs in South East Asia and the US*
hoho ho, merry christmas
Let me ask you a question. Do you think having your infantry as 20 width divisions to hold a front line, and then 40 width panzer divisions, (for extra punch through th front lines) for pincer and flanking, for encriclement maneuvers, would be better?
Or would 40 with infantry units to set and hold a front line with 20 width panzer divisions for flanking and encriclement be better?
Well that was certainly educational.
So 20w is better for covering your frontline and 40w is better in applying pressure in specific points?
i wonder, how do you always manage to slip pass enemy frontline defense line? Usually they close all the front gaps before i can slip through them to deal fast encirclement and towards victory point, or my troops just get heavily encircled
So to tell long stories short (if that is possible for HoI4): 40 width tank divisions for attacking and 20 width motorized and infantery to fill the frontline provinces and you'll crush every enemy?
awesome video， ty
Do you have a Patreon? I enjoy your videos a lot.
Could you make a guide to make encirclements like you have in your hoi4 videos?
Man Reman you are awesome. When i watch your eu4 video I usually end up starting a new game even if I hadnt touched it in months. Similar thing happened with hoi4, watched couple of your videos and I am playing first game since october^^
Reman, could you settle a question of interpretation?
A friend of mine and I have two differing philosophies about how to design armies and this video somehow only managed to reinforce both our views, mine coincides with the title of this video and the statement you made around 13:30 that I shoot for the majority of the army to be 40 width, however my friend has a very different philosophy, believing the majority of the army should be 20 width and that 40 width is "only" useful for attacking and breakthrough and that it's organization makes it useless at defense.
His conclusion essentially came to the idea that since you will majority of the time be defending 20 widths will be superior since they do not waste as much defense, and can defend more area with the same resources (or well nearly the same, granted artillery and support usage will increase, but let's not pretend 40 widths are cheap either). He additionally states that they make better use of air support (which you did also say), though I would also like further elaboration on that as well, is this simply because you can throw more bodies and hope to hold the enemy down? Wouldn't you if you have air superiority still always want to have 40 widths and try to beat the opponents? Additionally his method of breakthrough is a 20 width mechanized infantry usually, and it doesn't seem like he sees a reason to increase it's width.
My conclusion and personal experience has been quite the opposite, 40 widths seem to be able to shrug off attacks despite their lower organization due to the fact that whenever they attack they hit the enemy more reliably, breaking their organization, and despite the high, often wasted defense, it does mean (to my understanding) that they can stand up to pooled attacks from smaller divisions and shrug them off, something a 20 width often wont have the defense for. That on top of the obvious better attack capability in general means that shouldn't they be better all around assuming you can afford them, and reasonably supply them? I get throwing 20 widths at an enemy in a low supply area until you buff up infrastructure if that's one of the few situations you were referring to however.
I guess the general question of interpretation is, when you said that there were some situations you use 20 widths, despite generally shooting for a mostly 40 width army, was that 20 width situation including general infantry for front lines (assume you have reasonable resources, it's already a given that weak minors shouldn't worry about this) was it referring to general defense, or was it more fringe cases like fighting a land war in Asia, or just generally when you can't afford your 40 widths for whatever reason?
Whether or not 20 width divisions make better use of air power comes down to how they deal with organization. 2 20 widths will have much more organization that 1 40 width, so they should theoretically be able to last in battles for longer (which would let you get more bombings done). However, in the video I showed the 40 width would overcome its organization deficit by doing far more damage than the 20 widths, so the 40 width division's organization, though lower, would last longer. In the case the 40 width lasts longer, it would be the better choice.
On the other hand, if you want to defend against an enemy's air superiority 20 width would be better because of the way planes apply organization damage. But the only time you wouldn't have air superiority is very early in the game when 20 width divisions are already a better choice due to industry concerns.
Also, using 20 width mechanized as a breakthrough unit is... interesting. I'll refrain from judging it too harshly since I haven't seen the design and the exact conditions its used in, but I've yet to find a time when mechanized would ever be cost-effective over tanks or motorized.
Thanks for the reply, really helps to clarify your points, and makes sense.
For me, both 20 n 40w are useful
I simply use 40w only on offensive
and 20w only on defensive
@1:30 How did you get that? Which mod is that for your production tab?
Could you explain Attrition, Supply Status and how it effects units?
sorry late response. At 8:19 in the video the podcast2 states: "if a division is attacked by several... then it expends its defense only one...". That could mean, your example calulation at 9:40 is wrong, as you pool the attack of the two smaller divison and compare it to the total defense (breakthrough) of the larger one. There are two options: a) the larger unit expends only the number of breakthrough it needs for the attacking division (116) and saves the rest, what is the same as pooling b) it forgos all breakthrough values and has breakthrough =0 for the next attacking division.
I'm sold
Need to remember that in a 40-width combat scenario though (e.g. you're in MP and holding el-alamein), a 40-width dropping out will kick your entire side out the battle instantly regardless of the stacks. 20-width can be worth it just because of how choke points will not work well with the system.
Is there any benefit from the organisation bonus of 20 width divisions or is it completely canceled out by the 40 width's attack bonus?
I haven't given much thought into the width to be honest, the only times I made 40 width divisions was to make volunteer divisions be more effective: you send the same amount of divisions but with double the strike force
Man, you have far best HiO 4 videos. Shame they are so few, but I understand that you prefer quality over quantity and I respect that!
I feel that you slightly missed the mark on the support artillery issue of 20 vs 40 width divisions, as it's not just support artillery but also support anti tank and anti air. If you go with all 3 instead of say recon and logistics than the 20 width divisions will pack significantly more punch. Whether it's enough to tip the scales considering how combat works, probably not unless you also rotate divisions in and out as you mentioned, but it's certainly better than just using support artillery in the 20 width divisions. Basically it boils down to 20 width divisions being better with those 3 support divisions whereas 40 width divisions are better in the setup you mentioned. This is especially notable for Marines and Paratroopers as those can only consist of their respective infantry types, with no line artillery, tank destroyers, etc, which makes the support companies even more important. For this reason always go for 20, or even 10 width Marines/Paratroopers and use all 3 of those support companies along with typically Recon, Logistics and your choice(Engineers or Hospitals typically). The supply issue for special forces divisions is also significant as when invading in that manner supplies are typically limited almost to the same level as the "meaningless parts of the world" as you put it until you capture several ports to fix your supplies.
thx dude
blank space :(
blenk spece :((
bank sace:(((
spank bace :((((
wank base :(((((
swank place :(((((((
Thank you
In-depth guide on air combat next? :D
The problem with 40 widths is that they can't hold their own as well in defensive combat, so generally you should have a line of 20 widths to let the enemy drain their org on before you push in with 40 widths, which at that point you should always be able to win with 20 widths against a low-org 40 width.
And on a more personal note, the most efficient way to integrate 40 widths into your army also instantly causes supply shortages that last for several years unless you've been overproducing arty since the beginning of the game.
Remain this is a good strategy for mass assault doctrine countries with plenty of manpower (aka USSR and China) but the US or small Balkan nations... I will give it a try because you have clearly given this more thought than me but I am skeptical.
in the game the US goes with the superior firepower approach so artillery is the way to go and overwhelming ammo use is the way to win battles. hell even use chemical gas works with that.
I fairly recently tried USA with base infantry with 20 width, along with some 40 width infantry for a little more punch, then 40 width tank divisions. Worked really well, blasted through Germany in 1942 and then through the USSR in 1944.
Then again this was regular difficulty against AI because I'm a noob :|
It would be nice to see you make some stellaris content as well, help figure out best builds etc ;)
when you atack from 2 sides the 20 width divisions can atack with 3 while the 40 width defend with 1. doesnt that make them better for offense?
the width gets +40 for every additional province you're attacking from, so it would be 4 vs 2 divisions
the very reason you don't get higher than 40 width
ah, thought it was 20 per, thanks
np
Completely forgot vanilla stats, but that breakthrough on infantry is insane lmao.
In the new patch I've been using 16 width mass assault with 10 pure infantry. 5 makes 80 and with mass assault 12 infantry gives the awkward 19.2 width. With a massively boosted reinforce and recovery rate you have 20 divisions per tile (midwar levels) it's basically impossible to break through without destroying equipment (cheap high reliability rifles) or killing the population (10% before any industry penalties) so your line is more stable than 10 fort mountains. Plus guerilla warfare reduces the combat width by -75% so 40 width gets retarded penalties. Then you let your airforce fueled from the factories you would use making support equipment, artillery, medium tanks etc. and obliterate their industry with strategy bombers (or use CAS concentrated at one point to obliterate enemy equipment in a push). From what I've seen its basically a hard counter to the standard meta