Armoured Division composition (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Advanced Tactics Series >> The War Room



Message

cbardswell -> Armoured Division composition (6/6/2013 10:52:46 AM)

Ok, question for anyone and everyone.

I've given up carrying infantry on my tanks because it seemed to be a waste of time. Losses on my panzer-grenadiers were consistently horrendous * . I now run pure tank armoured divisions. Typically 6 tanks and move infantry in separately either mechanised or motorised to secure the flanks of my penetration.

What have I missed? Have other people had the same experience? How do you structure your armoured divs? What "teeth to tail" balances do you go for? Have these questions already been answered in another thread? (I've had a browse but didn't find anything definitive)

Cheers all!

* typically 50% per engagement - I mentally have the image of that bit in Saving Private Ryan when the quad 20mm opens up on the infantry assaulting the Tiger resulting in a fine red mist.



jday305 -> RE: Armoured Division composition (6/6/2013 11:33:57 AM)

Try including halftracks with your armour units that include infantry. The halftracks offer better protection for them and the armour units will benefit with the better recon points that infantry have.[sm=tank2-39.gif]



cbardswell -> RE: Armoured Division composition (6/6/2013 5:18:00 PM)

Yes - that's basically where I had got to as well - mechanised inf in tandem with armour - but I was more intrigued if anyone else tries to have infantry ride on armour and not get consistently minced - is it just a nice option for when you are rolling victoriously across the steppe post breakthrough and your men can't be arsed to wait for the trucks. Essentially they don't get any advantage from being with tanks that I can see.

Cheers



jday305 -> RE: Armoured Division composition (6/6/2013 5:28:50 PM)

I had the same problems with casualties when infantry just rode on tanks; usually 30-40% casualties even when just fighting other infantry. This happens even when softing up the enemy with air and artillery attacks. I guess in real life these infantry are even more exposed to enemy fire being elevated 5+ feet while riding the tank than normally advancing on foot. Once half tracks were included I had many battles with little to no infantry casualties while rolling over the enemy AI infantry. If there is a way to do it without halftracks I don't know what it is.



Twotribes -> RE: Armoured Division composition (6/6/2013 5:59:35 PM)

My armor division.

4 Armored cars
2 Light Tanks
5 Medium Tanks
40 rifle
10 Machine guns
10 mortars
2 Flak
4 half Tracks.

My mechanized Division.

50 rifle
10 Machine guns
10 Mortars
10 Bazooka
2 flak
2 Assault guns
2 Tank destroyers
5 Half Tracks



Twotribes -> RE: Armoured Division composition (6/6/2013 6:04:00 PM)

My Armor Corps

3 Armor Divisions
1 Mechanized Division
1 Armored cavalry Brigade
1 Artillery Division

Armored Cav

5 jeep
5 Armored Car
5 Light Tanks
20 Rifle
2 flak
2 Half tracks

Artillery Division

10 Artillery
2 Flak
6 transport ( either trucks or Half tracks depending on what I have available

Takes about 200 staff for this formation.



Josh -> RE: Armoured Division composition (6/6/2013 8:37:45 PM)

I've ran into the same problem as well Charlie. Used to build medium tanks and give them some infantry, say 10 per 3-4 tanks. Died like flies. Only thing they do is soak up shots fired at your tanks... so your tanks *should* have a higher survivability...should have. Dunno. I've changed from medium tanks to light tanks... they really are infantry killers so no reason to give them infantry support. They gain Exp fast because of the infantry kills they make, and are cheaper to upgrade. A lvl II-III light tank with a high experience level is a awesome killer, fast and deadly. IMHO it is very hard to get high level exp infantry...60 and higher is rare. So that is where the cavalry comes in. More expensive but also more deadly, *and* they gain pretty high exp levels... a bit odd to see them as "panzergrenadiers" but oh well.



alomoes -> RE: Armoured Division composition (6/6/2013 10:58:15 PM)

So half tracks are the transport of choice? I usually use trucks, but still lose a lot of men. I'll try it in a small battle.



Twotribes -> RE: Armoured Division composition (6/6/2013 11:01:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: alomoes

So half tracks are the transport of choice? I usually use trucks, but still lose a lot of men. I'll try it in a small battle.


Half Tracks absorb hits meant for the Rifle and Infantry type units they carry. And they add a lot of recon as well. Tanks are blind as bats. Including light tanks.



Josh -> RE: Armoured Division composition (6/7/2013 11:41:32 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: alomoes

So half tracks are the transport of choice? I usually use trucks, but still lose a lot of men. I'll try it in a small battle.


Depends. I use horses almost throughout the game, they are cheap and don't use oil and much supply, and can go through *any* terrain. Halftracks are faster and offer more protection... but are quite expensive both in PP's and oil usage. So I use HT's from midgame till endgame for the more experienced troops, those have also AT guns, mortars, MG's and Inf guns attached, so quite the punch.



srndac -> RE: Armoured Division composition (6/8/2013 4:52:57 AM)

Man!

Now, if I remember it right, the stack points for these units of yours are about:

Armor Division: 4*5 +7*10 +60*1 +2*10 = 170
Mech Division: 80*1 +2*10 +4*10 = 140
Armored Cavalry: 5*5 +5*10 +20*1 +2*10 = 115
Artillery: 10*10 +2*10 = 120

You must have some horrendous casualty rates!



Twotribes -> RE: Armoured Division composition (6/8/2013 5:26:06 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: srndac

Man!

Now, if I remember it right, the stack points for these units of yours are about:

Armor Division: 4*5 +7*10 +60*1 +2*10 = 170
Mech Division: 80*1 +2*10 +4*10 = 140
Armored Cavalry: 5*5 +5*10 +20*1 +2*10 = 115
Artillery: 10*10 +2*10 = 120

You must have some horrendous casualty rates!


I am fighting 10 to 16 units per attacked stack with lots and lots of troops in them. It generally takes a full corps to break the stack. But then I believe in bigger is better.



srndac -> RE: Armoured Division composition (6/8/2013 6:07:36 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes


quote:

ORIGINAL: srndac

Man!

Now, if I remember it right, the stack points for these units of yours are about:

Armor Division: 4*5 +7*10 +60*1 +2*10 = 170
Mech Division: 80*1 +2*10 +4*10 = 140
Armored Cavalry: 5*5 +5*10 +20*1 +2*10 = 115
Artillery: 10*10 +2*10 = 120

You must have some horrendous casualty rates!


I am fighting 10 to 16 units per attacked stack with lots and lots of troops in them. It generally takes a full corps to break the stack. But then I believe in bigger is better.


In this game? No way.
The more troops (or units) the better - yes.
But larger units just suffer more losses and inflict less in return ...
And don't get intimidated by the enemy's numbers - the bigger they are the easier they fall - and this game shows it.

Take this enemy of yours, for example:
10 to 16 huge units? That sounds to me like units I saw sometimes - some 100 or more Rifles or SMG's in a unit right? (Okay, maybe they're Tanks instead - the principle's all the same) So that's at least 1000 Infantry - say 1000 Stack Points.
So, the Combat Power of each Rifle/SMG drops to (100 / 1000) a 1/10th of the full value, but the HP's of each Rifle/SMG drop likewise. *hint* *hint*
Sure, the numbers will eventually push you back, but not before you take out a whole lot of them than they can ever take out of you.
Especially if your troops are in some kind of Cover. (which is a huge bonus against Armor)
Besides, you've got room to fall back on, right?
And they don't have inexhaustible numbers either.

It's maneuvering time!



Twotribes -> RE: Armoured Division composition (6/8/2013 7:14:17 AM)

Most games except artillery the individual unit is no bigger then 100 Rifle or some mix. One exception was a game where the AI plus built units with 2 to 300 rifle in them, those are easy to take out. One wants to advance one commits the troops needed for the task.



srndac -> RE: Armoured Division composition (6/8/2013 7:17:49 AM)

And, since I'm already replying - here's my unit mix:

Tank Brigade:
4 Tanks or Armored Cars
5 Mortars
5 Rifles or Bazookas or Mortars (as necessary)

Mech Brigade:
2 Armored Thingies (Tanks, AG's, TD's, AC's - as necessary)
2 Infantry or AT Guns (as necessary)
5 Mortars
15 Rifles or SMG's
2 Halftracks

Infantry Brigade:
2 Infantry or AT guns (as necessary)
5 Mortars
5 MG's or Bazookas or Mortars (as necessary)
20 Rifles (30 if 2 Horses)
5 Horses (or 2 if you want just Guns mobile)
(haven't played ATG much, so I have no idea how Cavalry fits in all this)

Artillery Brigade: (at least 1 per 3 or 4 other Brigades)
4 Artillery
10 Rifles (5 if on Horse)
3 Trucks / Halftracks or 5 Horses
any Flak's in the Army are mixed in here - usually 2 or 3 of them instead of Rifles, and with additional Trucks / Halftracks / Horses to carry it all.

Note that all of these are mixed to about 50 Stack Points.

Cheers!



Strategiusz -> RE: Armoured Division composition (6/13/2013 8:45:37 PM)

If I have PP I prefer Mortars (rear units) as a tank riders, or Bazookas (more HP, additional anti-tanks power). If you use front area infantry in attack you must think about them as a chaff, they job is to take enemy fire and die, but maybe your other units (real attacking units) will survive longer.



cbardswell -> RE: Armoured Division composition (6/17/2013 5:58:00 PM)

Thanks guys (I go on holiday for a week and find plenty to mull over on my return). It seems I am not missing anything - riding on tanks in the assault is code named "operation certain death".

Great shout on including rear area units with tanks- I think that's probably e refinement I need to make. Will stick to my armoured divisions consisting roughly 6-8 armoured units; (with rear area units to be experimented with and added). Along with a separate mot/ mech div/bde.

2 other quick ones -

1) I tend to include artillery within my divisions - is e any advantage to doing so or is it better to have separate armoured brigades?
2) stacking (whilst I am aware that this is the "3rd rail" of these forums, this is a mechanical rather than philosophical question) - when stacking penalties are applied, do they count on the departure hex, or the destination hex. I.e. I have 6 units surrounding a city of 100 stack pints each. If they attack simultaneously do I face a massive stacking penalty, or only if they are jumping off for mother same point. Instinctively I think I know the answer but confirmation would be appreciated.

Thanks all - the knowledge sharing is awesome!

Charlie




srndac -> RE: Armoured Division composition (6/18/2013 3:20:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: cbardswell

Thanks guys (I go on holiday for a week and find plenty to mull over on my return). It seems I am not missing anything - riding on tanks in the assault is code named "operation certain death".

Great shout on including rear area units with tanks- I think that's probably e refinement I need to make. Will stick to my armoured divisions consisting roughly 6-8 armoured units; (with rear area units to be experimented with and added). Along with a separate mot/ mech div/bde.

2 other quick ones -

1) I tend to include artillery within my divisions - is e any advantage to doing so or is it better to have separate armoured brigades?
2) stacking (whilst I am aware that this is the "3rd rail" of these forums, this is a mechanical rather than philosophical question) - when stacking penalties are applied, do they count on the departure hex, or the destination hex. I.e. I have 6 units surrounding a city of 100 stack pints each. If they attack simultaneously do I face a massive stacking penalty, or only if they are jumping off for mother same point. Instinctively I think I know the answer but confirmation would be appreciated.

Thanks all - the knowledge sharing is awesome!

Charlie




1. Not sure I got the question right - but, IMHO, it's best to leave Artillery out of the Actual 'Combat' Brigades as it only takes up valuable Stack room once it has spent all of it's AP's on the (extremely useful) enemy bombardment.
2. Destination hex. The attacking 'Units' are counted as 'moving' into the attacked hex (even if they didn't move in fact) which is represented by the fact that after the attack is won (presumably) the attacking units may move into the 'conquered' hex for free.

And, FYI, Stacking limit is 50 Stack per direction of attack. The minimum is 100, and maximum (obviously) is 300 - so your 600 stack points attacking would have their Attack and Hit Points Halved.
Basically, and IMHO, your 100 Stack Point units are only good for attacking one by one - not at all en masse.

Cheers!



Strategiusz -> RE: Armoured Division composition (6/19/2013 7:24:22 PM)

Attacking one by one has sense only when you attack, wait turn, attack etc. During given turn hexes remember stackpoints for land attacks, air attacks and artillery bombards.



cbardswell -> RE: Armoured Division composition (6/24/2013 1:04:48 PM)

@srndac

My question was a bit different to the one you answered but not entirely clear to be fair!

It's not so much whether it makes sense to include artillery within divisions but do they get any advantage from sharing an HQ.

So, let's say I've got an infantry corps consisting 3 divisions of 100 rifles each. I have the option of attaching a 10 strong artillery division under the same HQ. will the infantry get any advantage from attacking a target that has been bombarded by the artillery by virtue of the fact the artillery is under the same HQ? (I.e. beyond the normal assist effects of artillery bombardment, but specific to that fact they share an HQ)



JagdFlanker -> RE: Armoured Division composition (6/24/2013 4:46:33 PM)

no specific advantage - any unit under any HQ will benefit the exact same from the bombardment results



Jenska -> RE: Armoured Division composition (6/25/2013 2:27:07 AM)

I was going to start a new thread for this, but it looks like all the right people and viewpoints are here. SO, does anyone else think that half tracks provide way too much defensive capacity for the infantry without reducing the INF combat effectiveness. It seems that the HT's are far too had to kill, they weren't full blown APC's after all, and should be more succeptable to tank fire. And "mounted" INF usually can't fight at full capability either. Most other games make some adjustment for that. ATG seems to give the soft-mobile category no natural enemies, but the HT's have as many amor hitpoints as an armored car and even more infantry hitpoints than the AC. I thought HT's were protection from small arms and shell fragments, not from direct hits from (anti)(tank) artillery. IT seems that the HT is unbalanced due to being in a light weight mobile category that should have been hard to hit (jeeps & trucks) but given armor class defense against all comers while allowing the infantry to fight even when "buttoned up". Does anyone else feel this way, or am I being a sore loser, having been unable to stop an onslaught of HT carried rifle & smg troops ??



Twotribes -> RE: Armoured Division composition (6/25/2013 3:13:47 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jenska

I was going to start a new thread for this, but it looks like all the right people and viewpoints are here. SO, does anyone else think that half tracks provide way too much defensive capacity for the infantry without reducing the INF combat effectiveness. It seems that the HT's are far too had to kill, they weren't full blown APC's after all, and should be more succeptable to tank fire. And "mounted" INF usually can't fight at full capability either. Most other games make some adjustment for that. ATG seems to give the soft-mobile category no natural enemies, but the HT's have as many amor hitpoints as an armored car and even more infantry hitpoints than the AC. I thought HT's were protection from small arms and shell fragments, not from direct hits from (anti)(tank) artillery. IT seems that the HT is unbalanced due to being in a light weight mobile category that should have been hard to hit (jeeps & trucks) but given armor class defense against all comers while allowing the infantry to fight even when "buttoned up". Does anyone else feel this way, or am I being a sore loser, having been unable to stop an onslaught of HT carried rifle & smg troops ??


I lose halftracks and Infantry all the time.



srndac -> RE: Armoured Division composition (6/25/2013 7:29:48 AM)

@ cbardswell

What he (Flanker Leader) said.


@ Jenska

No offense, but, IMHO (and from personal experience) - you're just being a sore loser.
I don't blame you, though - I'm finding that ATG's AI is a whole lot harder than the AT's AI. Especially with no restrictions on Raw and Oil materials. It can (the AI, I mean) literally build 100's of Heavy Tanks and then drive them to the other side of the map without breaking a sweat. Very (VERY) annoying.
But makes victory (when you finally manage to achieve it) all the sweeter.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I get the impression that the enemy (in your game) is using only Half-Tracks and Rifles/SMG's - no supports?

cheers!



cbardswell -> RE: Armoured Division composition (6/25/2013 11:00:43 AM)

@srndac @flanker leader - cheers guys!

@jenska - hmmm, I know what you mean but I don't think it's that unbalanced. Generally tanks go through half tracks pretty quick (even given HTs are rear area) and on the defence a stiffening of bazookas in the infantry works well for me. Overall it "feels" about right. I've lost enough half tracks on the offensive to wish they were a bit tougher sometimes! [8|]



Jenska -> RE: Armoured Division composition (6/25/2013 7:51:58 PM)

Okay, I stand corrected, thanks for straightening me out. I guess I just need to get enough armor in one place to hammer them properly. Three tanks vs two HT's doesn't seem to do it yet, which is what I would have expected; especially since the ht's are cheaper than light tanks. In my case the opposition is mostly rifle/smg in HT's , with a few bazookas against my armor. In the woods I expect to lose, but in the open I don't seem to do much better. BY the time I get to Heavy Tanks, it'll be over.



Josh -> RE: Armoured Division composition (6/26/2013 2:00:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jenska

Okay, I stand corrected, thanks for straightening me out. I guess I just need to get enough armor in one place to hammer them properly. Three tanks vs two HT's doesn't seem to do it yet, which is what I would have expected; especially since the ht's are cheaper than light tanks. In my case the opposition is mostly rifle/smg in HT's , with a few bazookas against my armor. In the woods I expect to lose, but in the open I don't seem to do much better. BY the time I get to Heavy Tanks, it'll be over.


Not exactly sure how the calculating is done, but each unit has a number of attacks per turn, that turn is divided into 10 rounds. Heavy equipment like tanks get less shots out than lighter stuff like Infantry or HT's. So while that lighter stuff won't hurt your Light Tanks probably, it's quite possible that your tank unit won't kill or destroy that enemy unit either.
What I almost always do is bombard with Artillery (especially Heavy Artillery... [&o] ) then send in the Bombers (if possible that is, always avoid Flak or enemy Fighters) to lower the readiness of the opposing unit (that's the green bar). The lower that green bar the better. Then follows the final attack. Maybe this will change your results?



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.296875