Best Mountaineer Division Composition And Combat Width

[BigBaddie]

Well, the title pretty much sums it up. I have a large stretch of moutainous terrain that I need to attack and I was wondering what would be the most optimal make up for mountaineers. I was thinking maybe a cambat width of 10 should suffice.

Also, the mountains are defended by a combination of infantry, mechanized and armor divisions. So I was wondering wether I should attach artillery and anti tank brigades as support units or as part of the division itself.

[YolkOnYou]

It depends on the supply situation. I usually make them full size so I can use them in other cicumstances.

[BigBaddie]

引用自 Ian Wantskids：

It depends on the supply situation. I usually make them full size so I can use them in other cicumstances.

Supply is the issue. From what I can tell, infrastructure seems to be pretty bad. I am planning to attach a logistics company to the division. I'm split between a combat width of 10 or 20 though.

[YolkOnYou]

引用自 Sir Edward XII：

引用自 Ian Wantskids：

It depends on the supply situation. I usually make them full size so I can use them in other cicumstances.

Supply is the issue. From what I can tell, infrastructure seems to be pretty bad. I am planning to attach a logistics company to the division. I'm split between a combat width of 10 or 20 though.

Go for the ten then. You can cover more and you'll have a bit more firepower.

[BigBaddie]

引用自 Ian Wantskids：

引用自 Sir Edward XII：

Supply is the issue. From what I can tell, infrastructure seems to be pretty bad. I am planning to attach a logistics company to the division. I'm split between a combat width of 10 or 20 though.

Go for the ten then. You can cover more and you'll have a bit more firepower.

So I should attach the artillery and anti tank as support instead?

[HugsAndSnuggles]

引用自 Sir Edward XII：

Supply is the issue. From what I can tell, infrastructure seems to be pretty bad. I am planning to attach a logistics company to the division. I'm split between a combat width of 10 or 20 though.

Provided you use support, less combat width = more firepower (and losses). Firepower is your primary concern when taking over fortified area (with exception of level 10 forts), since high org can be 'replaced' by number of divisions. Play with numbers a bit - might even go with 8, if supplies are not too bad.

Edit: and yes, you'll need all support you can get, especially AT (or at least AA) to get enough piercing.

[BigBaddie]

引用自 HugsAndSnuggles：

引用自 Sir Edward XII：

Supply is the issue. From what I can tell, infrastructure seems to be pretty bad. I am planning to attach a logistics company to the division. I'm split between a combat width of 10 or 20 though.

Provided you use support, less combat width = more firepower (and losses). Firepower is your primary concern when taking over fortified area (with exception of level 10 forts), since high org can be 'replaced' by number of divisions. Play with numbers a bit - might even go with 8, if supplies are not too bad.

Edit: and yes, you'll need all support you can get, especially AT (or at least AA) to get enough piercing.

Thank you for the detailed reply! So from what I understand im better off using AT and Artillery on the support column rather than attaching them directly to the brigade? And using mountaineers to fill up the combat width?

[BigBaddie]

And when you say 8 do you mean 8 combat width or 8 brigades?

[HugsAndSnuggles]

引用自 Sir Edward XII：

Thank you for the detailed reply! So from what I understand im better off using AT and Artillery on the support column rather than attaching them directly to the brigade? And using mountaineers to fill up the combat width?

Generally - yes (especially in smaller width divisions). As for exact number: see how much line artillery would give you compared to support artillery and how high penalty you'll get for mountain attack.

8 is for width.

Trick with taking mountains and such (other than getting around and ignoring until they starve) is to press the attack so that enemy won't re-org and new divisions won't fortify. So you'll need as many spare divisions as your supply situation and IC would reasonably allow. You might even get away with using armor in the mountains (for low manpower losses) if you have enough CAS in the area (CAS don't care how fortified your enemy is).

[BigBaddie]

引用自 HugsAndSnuggles：

引用自 Sir Edward XII：

Thank you for the detailed reply! So from what I understand im better off using AT and Artillery on the support column rather than attaching them directly to the brigade? And using mountaineers to fill up the combat width?

Generally - yes (especially in smaller width divisions). As for exact number: see how much line artillery would give you compared to support artillery and how high penalty you'll get for mountain attack.

8 is for width.

Trick with taking mountains and such (other than getting around and ignoring until they starve) is to press the attack so that enemy won't re-org and new divisions won't fortify. So you'll need as many spare divisions as your supply situation and IC would reasonably allow. You might even get away with using armor in the mountains (for low manpower losses) if you have enough CAS in the area (CAS don't care how fortified your enemy is).

Ohh I see, that's a good idea! That way I can keep presure until they break. So let's say I have a 10 division army, I'd attack with 5 at the first until they begin to waver, then I'll switch with the other 5 while the units that were just in combat reorganize and so on.
And yeah sometimes I use heavy armor in mountains just to wear down the defenders a bit and then send in infantry to clean them up.

As for the line vs support artillery I'll take a look at the stats and see what's would be more sensible to use. If I am to use 8 combat width then I'm probably better off using support art/at.

Thank you for your help! I appreciate it!

[YolkOnYou]

引用自 Sir Edward XII：

引用自 Ian Wantskids：

Go for the ten then. You can cover more and you'll have a bit more firepower.

So I should attach the artillery and anti tank as support instead?

That'd work. I wouldn't use anti tanks for main brigades anyway. EDIT: I'm gonna try the 8 combat width, having five divisions vs 4 sounds really good for invading Turkey.

[HugsAndSnuggles]

引用自 Sir Edward XII：

Ohh I see, that's a good idea! That way I can keep presure until they break.

Yes, that's the idea behind disregarding org and using low-width divisions with support to squeeze in as much firepower as you can. Just remember that those divisions won't do much good on defense because of low org and def.

[BigBaddie]

引用自 Ian Wantskids：

引用自 Sir Edward XII：

So I should attach the artillery and anti tank as support instead?

That'd work. I wouldn't use anti tanks for main brigades anyway. EDIT: I'm gonna try the 8 combat width, having five divisions vs 4 sounds really good for invading Turkey.

Yeah I'm about to try that as well. See how well Russia's doomstacks hold up.

[BigBaddie]

引用自 HugsAndSnuggles：

引用自 Sir Edward XII：

Ohh I see, that's a good idea! That way I can keep presure until they break.

Yes, that's the idea behind disregarding org and using low-width divisions with support to squeeze in as much firepower as you can. Just remember that those divisions won't do much good on defense because of low org and def.

Yeah I get that. The way I have it set up is I have my defensive army made up of 7/2 basic infantry and artillery and then I have my attack/specialist armies set up in smaller more focused regions of the front line. So my specialized forces do the attacking and my defense army simply holds the line and advances as I breakthrough. That way I ensure that in case an attack fails I still have fresh troops ready to repel a potential counter attack.

[Dr.Absinthius]

the optimal combat width is 10 or 20, because the number is calculated by the infrastructurer x 10. i mostly use 20, except for anti-resistance troops. Mostly because if you build many small divisions, you have to produce more Arty and Support, compared to fewer bigger Divisions. Producing infantry weapons is never the problem, imo. Second, if you have many Divisons, you will need more generals, and more micromanagment.
Logisticwise, you have to pay attention on the logistic capacity of the region. Reservs have to placed in a different region, to get an own supportline.