Army composition

[Chiakopf]

I usually play Germany. I've tried to keep my armies "pure." By that I mean totally infantry,t totally armor ( including motorized and Cav.) and the like. Would I be better off integrating types into armies?

[AdmiralPiett]

It depends on the front. A combined arms army makes sense in certain situations, other situations might be good for using specialized attacking armies made up entirely of armored or mechanized forces while the front is held in general by more infantry types.

[Losk Osmanthus 路渐秋凉]

it might start to get expensive.

[mk11]

Depends how much you use battle plans. How much you care about general traits and which. How much you like to follow historical practice.

Running all your armies with 24 divisions helps get the Skilled Staffer trait.

[drewbstar]

It’s better to keep your armies seperated by type. Inf under one general, armor under another. This is because they gain trait exp (like the ones that buff inf or armor defense) based in the % of unit types. In other words, if you want tank buffs you need your general to have mostly tanks. (Technically >40%, but still, I just do it to make frontlines easier)

[CaptainSpacetime]

yeah all the traits come from generals so gotta split up different divisions under different generals.

[AdmiralPiett]

Originally posted by CaptainSpacetime:

yeah all the traits come from generals so gotta split up different divisions under different generals.

That's not completely true. Yes, some generals are specialized for certain units, but that just makes them MORE effective when commanding those units, not ineffective when commanding more mixed armies. The supply and logistics issues from creating "pure" armies can outweigh any bonuses benefit from using unit-specialized generals

[mk11]

Originally posted by drewbstar:

It’s better to keep your armies seperated by type. Inf under one general, armor under another. This is because they gain trait exp (like the ones that buff inf or armor defense) based in the % of unit types. In other words, if you want tank buffs you need your general to have mostly tanks. (Technically >40%, but still, I just do it to make frontlines easier)

AFAIK, it is not the army composition that controls trait experience gain but rather than the participants in a battle. If you activate battle plans to attack then having them organised like that is good but if you micro-manage your attacks it makes no difference to trait gain.

[mk11]

Originally posted by AdmiralPiett:

Originally posted by CaptainSpacetime:

yeah all the traits come from generals so gotta split up different divisions under different generals.

That's not completely true. Yes, some generals are specialized for certain units, but that just makes them MORE effective when commanding those units, not ineffective when commanding more mixed armies. The supply and logistics issues from creating "pure" armies can outweigh any bonuses benefit from using unit-specialized generals

There are also some nations that have few generals with high skill. Trait bonuses are applied at the battalion level. So a general giving +15% to armour attack is actually only +10% or so given the division has infantry and tanks. 2 points of attack skill gives that +10%. But then maybe you want to spread out to get more skilled generals. As always it is a complex balance and not a simple do this.

[AdmiralPiett]

Originally posted by mk11:

Originally posted by AdmiralPiett:

That's not completely true. Yes, some generals are specialized for certain units, but that just makes them MORE effective when commanding those units, not ineffective when commanding more mixed armies. The supply and logistics issues from creating "pure" armies can outweigh any bonuses benefit from using unit-specialized generals

There are also some nations that have few generals with high skill. Trait bonuses are applied at the battalion level. So a general giving +15% to armour attack is actually only +10% or so given the division has infantry and tanks. 2 points of attack skill gives that +10%. But then maybe you want to spread out to get more skilled generals. As always it is a complex balance and not a simple do this.

Dont say this too loud or the sweaty meta gamers who say there's only one right way to play will have your head on a stick lol

[Mack]

You want them split by type. Unless I'm using countries that need multiple fronts, I usually only have three armies under a field marshall. One for my main line infantry, one for my armour units and a 3rd for the garrisons.

If you have enough fighters + cas + artillery in your infantry units you don't even need armour, but I like storming across the world with armour.

[drewbstar]

Originally posted by mk11:

Originally posted by drewbstar:

It’s better to keep your armies seperated by type. Inf under one general, armor under another. This is because they gain trait exp (like the ones that buff inf or armor defense) based in the % of unit types. In other words, if you want tank buffs you need your general to have mostly tanks. (Technically >40%, but still, I just do it to make frontlines easier)

AFAIK, it is not the army composition that controls trait experience gain but rather than the participants in a battle. If you activate battle plans to attack then having them organised like that is good but if you micro-manage your attacks it makes no difference to trait gain.

Actually, yeah. It’s hard to talk about in simple terms without getting into the weeds of it, so my phrasing was pretty bad. Lol.

It’s been a while since I’ve tested trait grinding, so grain of salt, but IIRC:
It’s based on active combat, so if you have a general with 20 tank divisions and 4 inf divisions but only ever use the inf, you’ll get exp towards infantry leader.
The big problem which a lot of people don’t realize is that every trait you grind cuts the rate at which you earn the rest of your traits. I used to do mixed armies, trying to keep them seperated by area. The main problem I ran into was that my more offensive lines were getting a lot of exp towards traits I didn’t want them to get, making it much harder to get the ones I actually wanted.

The other half is stat gain, getting panzer leader adds +2 to your attack skill factor. (Armor officer gives +1 attack and +1 to planning, cav officer gives +1 attack +1 logistics), so you want to earn your panzer leader trait as early as possible, in terms of the general’s exp gen. This lets you have a general better specced for attacking by biasing the attack skill gain.

[AdmiralPiett]

Originally posted by AdmiralPiett:

It depends on the front. A combined arms army makes sense in certain situations, other situations might be good for using specialized attacking armies made up entirely of armored or mechanized forces while the front is held in general by more infantry types.

bumping this because i feel the need to stress there is no "one right answer" here

army composition is yet another aspect of this HISTORICAL grand strategy game that is under assault and threatened with ruin by sweaty tryhard meta gaming

[drewbstar]

Originally posted by AdmiralPiett:

Originally posted by AdmiralPiett:

It depends on the front. A combined arms army makes sense in certain situations, other situations might be good for using specialized attacking armies made up entirely of armored or mechanized forces while the front is held in general by more infantry types.

bumping this because i feel the need to stress there is no "one right answer" here

army composition is yet another aspect of this HISTORICAL grand strategy game that is under assault and threatened with ruin by sweaty tryhard meta gaming

I don’t disagree that there is no perfect one right answer. I would disagree that it’s all by tryhard meta gamers.

For me personally, the number one reason is that it’s easier to manage. The vast majority of the reasons behind my actions in HOI4 as a whole is to make the process simpler, easier, or faster.

For me it’s much faster to deal with an army that is all the same division so that I can reassign divisions with ease and without having to balance the different types. It’s much easier to e.g have the blue frontline be tanks with the red frontline of infantry when pulling troops to crush an encirclement or rebalancing coverage.

For me, the stat and trait bonuses are a nice bonus, for many it’s the main reason.

[AdmiralPiett]

Originally posted by drewbstar:

Originally posted by AdmiralPiett:

bumping this because i feel the need to stress there is no "one right answer" here

army composition is yet another aspect of this HISTORICAL grand strategy game that is under assault and threatened with ruin by sweaty tryhard meta gaming

I don’t disagree that there is no perfect one right answer. I would disagree that it’s all by tryhard meta gamers.

For me personally, the number one reason is that it’s easier to manage. The vast majority of the reasons behind my actions in HOI4 as a whole is to make the process simpler, easier, or faster.

For me it’s much faster to deal with an army that is all the same division so that I can reassign divisions with ease and without having to balance the different types. It’s much easier to e.g have the blue frontline be tanks with the red frontline of infantry when pulling troops to crush an encirclement or rebalancing coverage.

For me, the stat and trait bonuses are a nice bonus, for many it’s the main reason.

I never said it was ALL meta gamers, just pointed out that army organization is another part of the game that has lots of RP potential but is frequently attacked by meta gamers insisting there's only one right/efficient/effective/correct way to play.

Others include:
fleet makeup (light cruiser spam)
division design (the old 7/2, space marines, etc.)
air force makeup (CAS spam)
navy deployment (deathstacking)
etc
etc
etc

[JDouglasBarson]

The army composition doesn't matter to the ai. That's a human need to visualize the organization. You should do what you want