What formations do people like to use?

[zgrssd]

ORIGINAL: yutowap33

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

The downside of mixing Artillery in with Infantry, is that using the artillery limits your ability to use the infantry itself

What do you mean?

If you got a a Siege Infantry unit (8 Infantry, 1 Artillery last time I tried it in a older savegame):
If you range attack with the Combat units Artillery subunits, the Artillery will use up all their AP shooting.
As at least one artillery subunit of the Combat Unit has no more AP left, the whole unit can no longer attack.

If you do the same with any infantry variant + attached Artillery:
Only the Artillery combat unit uses it's AP.
The other combat units still have their full AP, this they can still be used for a normal attack.

With Ranged attacks and Vehicles, there is a opportunity cost when mixing them into the Formation itself - rather then just attaching them.

[Mina]

OHQ commanders aren't THAT much trouble to deal with, if you're worried about them screwing things up just make sure they've got around 50 or less egoism/ambition and you're good to go. Likewise postures can be amazing: Rush/Mobile ops on armored formations means you can potentially attack two different stacks with the same unit, or do a followup attack on one you've already beaten down and potentially get mass surrenders. Fluid defense is a huge defensive boost to pure infantry formations with no downsides.

[redrum68]

Interesting discussion. Using primarily independent units has several advantages:
- Get full bonus from attacking from multiple hexes (cross OHQ gives only half) and can even use them in combination with militia forces
- Can use your limited manpower into better units and avoid using a lot of it on infantry (especially before you get better formations)
- More flexibility to move units around in the front and not worry about keeping each OHQ and its units within a few hexes
- More flexibility in recruiting units as don't have to wait for the at least 50% of the OHQ formation can just raise independent battalions with 500-1000 recruits

Now once you research better formations and postures, most of those advantages aren't enough to outweigh raising say light/medium tank brigade with a good leader and posture. But often times it will be quite a while before you get a staff council and some good formations.

[newageofpower]

HV Grenadiers are an amazing backstop. I heard you guys can just raise half the formation, how does one do this?

On a manpower basis, would a pure MG/RPG formation be stronger? Should I just avoid raising any normal infantry, lol?

[yutowap33]

I don't know about interesting, I haven't seen any good argument from Uemon, while you seem to argue only about early on strategy.

Anyway, power wise advantages of using Formations are:
- OHQ commander uses their skill to improve their formation combat efficiency (including, but not limited to, attack power, hitpoints, moral, action points, readiness regain, max Entrenchment...)
- Posture Stratagems can only be used on OHQ formation.
- Independent units can be attached as auxilries, which then also benefit from the Commanders skills and any Posture the Formation has been set to (e.g. ranged attack)

As noted before the combined effect of these can reach in hundreds and even thousands of percent, however, even early on if used with the most shittiest commander and basic formation/posture, this outweigh the cross OHQ multiple hexes attack situational debuff and unlike it gained anywhere in any terrain/position/role, draw a flower with your units if you like and you still you should get more percent no matter which unit is attacked/attacking.

But in my experience it's also better otherwise:
- Formations improve large army organization and reduce micro.
- Formations aren't mutually exclusive to independent units, but work in tandem.
- Early formations are a cheap way to supplement militia in hold the line, allowing to focus on other units to punch through or improve your industry.
- OHQ commander skill are little like field testing, the earlier you employ them the more benefit your reap down the line.

The only question isn't IF you employ formation, but WHEN you do so. Which depends on your starting conditions and strategy e.g. militia only or army start and does your conditions allow for early expansion military units or require investment in survival or industrial buildup.

[Mina]

ORIGINAL: newageofpower
On a manpower basis, would a pure MG/RPG formation be stronger? Should I just avoid raising any normal infantry, lol?

With the game's current mechanics, yes, but I mean the way it's set up currently seems like a compromise for the sake of mechanics. At the moment RPGs+MGs are completely separate from your regular infantry subunits, when you'd probably want to have some level of integrating those weapons into standard infantry as part of the company, if not at the squad level. That route removes some of the intricacies of formation design though, and reduces potential subunit vs subunit matchups.

On the other hand if the game did fold in the basic MG/RPGs as being organically part of infantry subunits, you could use different models as separate subunits, like quad MGs, and some form of Recoilless Rifle/ATGM. Those would definitely be organized into and deployed as independent companies.

[Mina]

It'd also be nice if there was something between Brigade and Corps size ingame. I might wanna upgrade my infantry formations, but quadrupling its size is too big of a leap.

[BlueTemplar]

ORIGINAL: Uemon

ORIGINAL: BlueTemplar

Ah, yeah, good point, even with "token" 1 Metal 1 IP infantry to fill the spots you don't care about, you're still going to need 100 recruits per subtroop !

Hmm, but wait - you can, once you can afford to recruit 50% of them (using "token infantry"), reduce Corps/Army units to have only specialist units in them ! (And keep that "token infantry" in your SHQ for the next formation you might need...)

I havent thought about that, but arent you limited to only attaching 2?

It seems like you've misunderstood me, I'm not talking about independents here.

Since a picture is worth a thousand words, here's a quick example :
Units with 9 machinegun-only subunits each, initially raised as a MG Infantry Corps :
(Note that you might want to raise the specialists manually first, so as not to have to waste items on "token" infantry, since the formation is going to take as many items as it can.)

[BlueTemplar]

ORIGINAL: Uemon

ORIGINAL: BlueTemplarAnd you can always move wherever you want, it's not like you will get *maluses* if your units are not in range of their OHQ...

Sure but if you get an epic leader isnt kinda the whole point to benefit from it? Why would you leave a unit as garrison, if they can get that bonus and be first liner.

ORIGINAL: redrum68
- More flexibility to move units around in the front and not worry about keeping each OHQ and its units within a few hexes

I didn't say anything about the units being limited to garrison, and my point is about formation units out of OHQ range not having any maluses compared to independent units (unattached to formations).
(Well, except for the surrounding, see below - the only thing you can do to "detach" the unit is to make a new battlegroup with subunits-3, which is also going to cost the subunits in the battlegroup all their APs for a turn).
And AFAIK, even out of OHQ range, they are going to still get the posture modifiers ?

ORIGINAL: redrum68
Interesting discussion. Using primarily independent units has several advantages:
- Get full bonus from attacking from multiple hexes (cross OHQ gives only half) and can even use them in combination with militia forces

Oh, yes, THIS ! This might be VERY important early on, as I expect that the difference between a +100% surround and a +200% is going to be MUCH higher than whatever you might get from a green OHQ commander !

ORIGINAL: redrum68
- Can use your limited manpower into better units and avoid using a lot of it on infantry (especially before you get better formations)
- More flexibility in recruiting units as don't have to wait for the at least 50% of the OHQ formation can just raise independent battalions with 500-1000 recruits

There are ways around most of that - see my example - (ways which *do* involve a lot of micromanagement...)

ORIGINAL: newageofpower
I heard you guys can just raise half the formation, how does one do this?

You just do, you can raise any OHQ/Independent formation starting with 50% of required items. (It's even less for battlegroups, you just need 3 subunits.)

ORIGINAL: newageofpower
On a manpower basis, would a pure MG/RPG formation be stronger? Should I just avoid raising any normal infantry, lol?

Well, maybe, but early on you're probably going to be more limited by other items than recruits.
Also, MGs/RPGs are more expensive than slugthrower infantry and IIRC don't provide any bonus on soft attack / soft combat (I think RPGs even get a malus on soft combat ?). (And they might be worse for that than carbine infantry while still being more expensive ?)

[redrum68]

ORIGINAL: BlueTemplar

ORIGINAL: redrum68
- Can use your limited manpower into better units and avoid using a lot of it on infantry (especially before you get better formations)
- More flexibility in recruiting units as don't have to wait for the at least 50% of the OHQ formation can just raise independent battalions with 500-1000 recruits

There are ways around most of that - see my example - (ways which *do* involve a lot of micromanagement...)

I generally agree with you and your example addresses some of the flexibility in what you can build with formations but I believe you still need 50% of the logistics to create that formation which is a pretty large amount. Sometimes you want to set units near the front and you don't have many remaining logistics points so a few strong independent units at the front can be more important than a new formation further back.

[BlueTemplar]

You need 0 logistic points to create a formation on the SHQ itself. (Though there seems to be a bug right now where you still seem to need more than 0 logistic points on the SHQ itself, even though none of them will be spent in the process).

Then you can move whatever fraction of them that you can using strategic movement on the same turn. (There's the downside of lost readiness though.)

[Uemon]

ORIGINAL: yutowap33

I don't know about interesting, I haven't seen any good argument from Uemon, while you seem to argue only about early on strategy.

Early on strategy is the one that matters the most. Unless youre playing a heavily mountainous world, you can blitz enemy with independent light tank battalions, and you cant do that with infantry formations. Are tank formations better than independent tank battalions? Sure. Are specialized infantry formations better than independent tank battalions? Sure. But you can have independent tank battalions dozens and dozens of turns before you can have either of those. How you cant see this as an argument is beyond me.

This is literally as if someone was telling you how trench warfare of WW1 was AMAZING because its difficult to dislodge infantry thats fully dug in, and im telling you that maneuver warfare in WW2 is simply more efficient and more practical way to achieve victory.

ORIGINAL: yutowap33But
The only question isn't IF you employ formation, but WHEN you do so.

No the question is do you have to use them to be competitive, and the answer is no. You are correct in that you can use them and you can combine them with independent units. Once you reach a certain point in your game where it doesnt matter any more what you do because youre swimming in resources or just want to roleplay.

[BlueTemplar]

ORIGINAL: Uemon
Early on strategy is the one that matters the most. Unless youre playing a heavily mountainous world, you can blitz enemy with independent light tank battalions, and you cant do that with infantry formations. Are tank formations better than independent tank battalions? Sure. Are specialized infantry formations better than independent tank battalions? Sure. But you can have independent tank battalions dozens and dozens of turns before you can have either of those. How you cant see this as an argument is beyond me.

Can't you ?

After all, you *immediately* have access to the Motorized Light Infantry Formations, as well as Independent Buggy, Motorized Machinegun, and Motorized Infantry, plus whatever motorized units your militia managed to scrap together, (militia units which will probably never be as relatively strong as on turn 1), while you still have to discover and design Light Tanks !
And since your city will generally be connected to the nearby cities by roads, your trucks (often with a move bonus) might be there *even faster* than if you did start with light tanks ! (I wonder if one manages to build logistics fast enough in both cases ?)

Yeah sure, they don't pack as much punch on attack as Howitzer Tanks, but basic infantry is also *much* cheaper
(hmm, now I'm wondering about dedicated truck battlegroups doing operational infantry transport from your city...),
so even if you're unable to immediately take the city, I imagine that you should be able to fairly quickly take all the interesting hexes in that regime's territory, completely surround the city with machineguns, switch on the Defense posture, and then just wait until you have sufficient punch to take the city itself ? (Moar basic infantry with Infiltration/All Out Attack, Artillery, Bombers... or of course Light Tanks ?)

And without a Formation, you won't have access to the starting Blitzkrieg Posture. (In your case, maybe make a token one, maybe without even a commander, just for this posture for the 2 attached tank units ?)

[yutowap33]

ORIGINAL: BlueTemplar
Oh, yes, THIS ! This might be VERY important early on, as I expect that the difference between a +100% surround and a +200% is going to be MUCH higher than whatever you might get from a green OHQ commander !

This can be very useful anytime, I pay attention to this even late game while using formations, however, in it self it is not a good argument against using formations. Also not advantage of independent units per se, but a disadvantage of mixing OHO units, which I see as reduced effectiveness of leader ability to command units outside their command hierarchy across multiple fronts.

Overall it is a situational advantage, ranging from 0-100%, that can be gained when MIXING OHQ units on multiple hexes ATTACK. Obviously if you don't use OHQ units, or use only OHQ units/attachments you still get the same bonus. I find it most useful to dislodge strong entrenched units (or on easier settings where you could pretty much always surround and hammer the enemy)

Still at most this can net you 100% (usually much less) if attacking in a specific position. Meanwhile even green OHQ commander with literally no skills nets you ~20%, that is ~20% flat to any Attack at any position and Defense of any unit. That just day 1, and assumes that you didn't get anyone WAY better by the time you can actually raise the formations, and no postures. If we are talking defense, then formation win hands down, using defense posture gets you additional 60% and the flexibility to utilize the terrain in anyway you need.

Anyway, in my personal experience on harder difficulty games. I find that Majors tend to have numerical and tech advantage over (they don't also care about logistics, right?), and can easily overrun you. I find that militias shatter too fast, so I use MG formation for holding the line, non arti militias as flankers to avoid getting my supply line cutoff (I don't savescum here), and use militia arti and more costly (IP wise) independent units to address issues and exploit opportunities until I can turn the tide. At which point it doesn't matter 10% here or there.

[Uemon]

ORIGINAL: BlueTemplar

ORIGINAL: Uemon
Early on strategy is the one that matters the most. Unless youre playing a heavily mountainous world, you can blitz enemy with independent light tank battalions, and you cant do that with infantry formations. Are tank formations better than independent tank battalions? Sure. Are specialized infantry formations better than independent tank battalions? Sure. But you can have independent tank battalions dozens and dozens of turns before you can have either of those. How you cant see this as an argument is beyond me.

Can't you ?

After all, you *immediately* have access to the Motorized Light Infantry Formations, as well as Independent Buggy, Motorized Machinegun, and Motorized Infantry, plus whatever motorized units your militia managed to scrap together, (militia units which will probably never be as relatively strong as on turn 1), while you still have to discover and design Light Tanks !
And since your city will generally be connected to the nearby cities by roads, your trucks (often with a move bonus) might be there *even faster* than if you did start with light tanks ! (I wonder if one manages to build logistics fast enough in both cases ?)

Yeah sure, they don't pack as much punch on attack as Howitzer Tanks, but basic infantry is also *much* cheaper
(hmm, now I'm wondering about dedicated truck battlegroups doing operational infantry transport from your city...),
so even if you're unable to immediately take the city, I imagine that you should be able to fairly quickly take all the interesting hexes in that regime's territory, completely surround the city with machineguns, switch on the Defense posture, and then just wait until you have sufficient punch to take the city itself ? (Moar basic infantry with Infiltration/All Out Attack, Artillery, Bombers... or of course Light Tanks ?)

And without a Formation, you won't have access to the starting Blitzkrieg Posture. (In your case, maybe make a token one, maybe without even a commander, just for this posture for the 2 attached tank units ?)

Yeah sure, they don't pack as much punch on attack as Howitzer Tanks, but basic infantry is also *much* cheaper
(hmm, now I'm wondering about dedicated truck battlegroups doing operational infantry transport from your city...),

Oil is the limiting factor. You can absolutely raise motorized infantry (formation or otherwise) and they do have mobility advantage (which i am using in a game right now, turn 24, i have annexed 2 cities and just mopped one raider regime by blitzing them with moto infantry). I however still claim that its better to save up whatever little oil you have early on and use it on light tanks; light tanks + (non motorized) infantry works even better.

[redrum68]

ORIGINAL: BlueTemplar

You need 0 logistic points to create a formation on the SHQ itself. (Though there seems to be a bug right now where you still seem to need more than 0 logistic points on the SHQ itself, even though none of them will be spent in the process).

Then you can move whatever fraction of them that you can using strategic movement on the same turn. (There's the downside of lost readiness though.)

Yeah, which in the case you want the unit to be ready to fight at the front next turn, the lost readiness can make it not worth building in SHQ then strat moving it.

[BlueTemplar]

Still at most this can net you 100% (usually much less) if attacking in a specific position.

You mean +200% ?

attaCk from x hex sIdes
ConCentrIC bonus
1 Side 0%
2 Sides 10-40%
3 Sides 40-80%
4 Sides 80-100%
5 Sides 150%
6 Sides 200%
(EDIT : I've seen some people say that it's still better to leave a hex for the enemy units to retreat, than to try to make them surrender by completely encircling them, especially if they're on a strong defensive position like ruins=city ?)

So :
6 sides mixed (+100%) =< 4-5 sides unmixed
5 sides mixed (+75%) =< 3-6 sides unmixed
4 sides mixed (+40%/+50%) =< 2-6 sides unmixed
3 sides mixed (+20%/+40%) =< 2-6 sides unmixed
2 sides mixed (+5%/+20%) =< 2-6 sides unmixed

And looks like it doesn't take a lot of unmixed surrounding to beat a green OHQ commander ? (Well, only on attack, and not counting postures.)

----

Majors certainly do care about logistics (in some ways), even city minors do !

[yutowap33]

ORIGINAL: BlueTemplar
You mean +200% ?

No. 0-100% is the most you gain over using mixed, as you calculated yourself. And for my use, I still will invest in OHQ as soon as I can.

ORIGINAL: BlueTemplar

Majors certainly do care about logistics (in some ways), even city minors do !

logistics show they get free AP and range, which explain how the Major was able to supply such a huge army early on, sooo far from its city over a dirt road. While I had to push a rail line.

[nathanebht]

Back to the original question.

Heavy MG infantry brigades. Then upgrade those to Mechanized Heavy MG Infantry brigades. Upgrade those again to a corps if I'm needing it. I can take ground with troop carriers, infantry and MG. I avoid the Motorized formations as the trucks get blown up frequently in any serious battle. The quad MG are a pain to upgrade but they do have nice fire power.

Howitzer Light tank brigades are useful for killing troops early and later in the game.

Armor formations that are 50% Howitzer Assault Gun and 50% non-Howitzer Medium tank are a really effective multi-purpose assault.

Artillery has several downsides.
1) Its use in capturing a city destroys all the buildings.
2) I find I need to build large amounts of artillery for it to be effective.
3) Frequent loses when used in formations. (WIsh the available formations let you choose to include mechanized artillery. Like you can choose between MG, Quad MG or mix them.)
4) High ammo use.

So I'm not using artillery much anymore. My hard difficulty games against the AI haven't called for RPG use. Laser MGs or Laser Quad MGs do roughly as much damage as RPGs.

[Mina]

Thanks for the input on mixed artillery formations, I'll see how I go but I can definitely see losses being a big annoyance. Always able to downgrade to just heavy grenadiers if they underperform.

As far as RPGs though, while early on you're much better off with attached anti-tank battalions, Micronuke RPGs are kind of good. I can't link a picture but I have a model currently with 1726/3452 hard attack in addition to 1269/2538 soft attack, which is fairly significant against a lot of enemies.