Army Organization and Unit Compliment

[jrm16311]

This topic might be ultra-geeky, but let's face it we are all geeks here. [:)]

I started playing with my buddy a few days after the game was released. We've played several scenarios and while learning all the "ins and outs" of the game I started thinking about how to best organize my forces to best optimize my supply lines and also best manage unit replacements. After doing some Google research, I decided not to reinvent the wheel and used something similar to the US Army structure, using four levels of HQ (Supreme, Army, Corp, and Division).

Reporting to each ground force Division HQ, I build several large formations as follows:
1 Heavy Armored Div.
5hv tanks, 10 med tanks, 5 AT, 50 rifle/SMG, 5 flak, x trucks
1 Light Armored/Calvary Div.
5 med tanks, 10 light tanks, 50 rifle/smg, 5 flak, x trucks
4 Mech. Infantry Div.
220 rifle/smg, 30mg, 30baz, 20mortar, 10 light tanks, 5 flak, 5 at-guns, x trucks
2 Mech. Infantry Reg. (for guarding the flanks)
50 rifle, 30mg, 5 at-gun, 5 light tanks, 5 flak, x trucks
1 Engineering Corp
20 rifle/smg, 100 eng, 5 flak, 5 at-gun, x trucks
1 Artillery Regiment
20 rifle/smg, 10 flak, 20 art.
1 Mt. Division (optional, infantry only so they can move through mountains...duh, hence the name)
10 scouts, 50 rifle/smg, 10 mg, 5 baz, 5 mortar, 20 eng


I also set up an Air Command HQ for each theater to support the ground forces Division HQ. These two are set up with large formations as follows:
1 Fighter Interception
10-20 fighers
2 Bomber Groups (with fighter escorts)
10 fighters, 20 bombers
1 Airlift Group
5-10 air transports
1-2 Airborne Infantry (paratroopers)
100-200 paratroopers

The other thing is that I've standardized the exact number of units each formation starts with, as you can see above, (still need some tweaking) and which I try to maintain by replacing as needed. I find this makes allocating replacements across the entire war map easier. I also find it helps adjusting production lines quickly because you know approximately how many of each unit is needed.

I'm wondering how other players here approach the game.

How do players organize themselves, Supreme HQ down to the individual formation?

What unit complement do players use for each formation type (armored, infantry, ect.)?

Do you guys find that using many smaller formations is better than using fewer large formations?

Feedback/input would be great.

[tweber]

Couple of comments:
 
- I think a flat organization is best.  1 top level HQ to manage supply.  As many front level HQs to keep staffing ranges good.  Intermediate HQs cost pp which could be diverted to R&D
- I prefer less unit diversity.  From an R&D standpoint, you can go deeper down the tree.  I would rather have rifle 3 or 4 than a bunch of 2nd level infantry types.
- I would keep scouts separate.  If they are with others, they lose their hide bonus.
- I would avoid huge para corps.  I use paras frequently, but they are poor in combat and only work against empty hexes and hexes where you get a retreat result after an air strike.  However, it is good to have a reputation for using paras as it forces you oponent to defend in depth.   You also never know when you may need to do a jump to grab the last hex in an encirclement.  Paras have high option value, but you do not want to over invest.
- I also prefer fighters over flak as fighters can cover a much larger area.  If have a hopelessly inferior airforce (e.g., playing the Soviets in 1941), I prefer dispersing units instead of building up large flak concentrations.  I think flak is too 1 dimensional.
 
I like:
 
- 1 lt tank, 25 rifle, 1 truck (double or repeat many times)
- 5 artillery, 10 rifle, 3 truck (1 for every 5 of the above)
- 60 eng, 3 truck (1 for every front line HQ)
 

[TPM]

ORIGINAL: tweber

Couple of comments:

- I think a flat organization is best.  1 top level HQ to manage supply.  As many front level HQs to keep staffing ranges good.  Intermediate HQs cost pp which could be diverted to R&D
- I prefer less unit diversity.  From an R&D standpoint, you can go deeper down the tree.  I would rather have rifle 3 or 4 than a bunch of 2nd level infantry types.
- I would keep scouts separate.  If they are with others, they lose their hide bonus.
- I would avoid huge para corps.  I use paras frequently, but they are poor in combat and only work against empty hexes and hexes where you get a retreat result after an air strike.  However, it is good to have a reputation for using paras as it forces you oponent to defend in depth.   You also never know when you may need to do a jump to grab the last hex in an encirclement.  Paras have high option value, but you do not want to over invest.
- I also prefer fighters over flak as fighters can cover a much larger area.  If have a hopelessly inferior airforce (e.g., playing the Soviets in 1941), I prefer dispersing units instead of building up large flak concentrations.  I think flak is too 1 dimensional.

I like:

- 1 lt tank, 25 rifle, 1 truck (double or repeat many times)
- 5 artillery, 10 rifle, 3 truck (1 for every 5 of the above)
- 60 eng, 3 truck (1 for every front line HQ)

Very interesting tweber...you keep things pretty light and simple. As far as the basic units you've outlined above, do you add anything to them? Mortars, machine guns, etc.? All those new units Vic created are just sitting there, waiting to be put into battle...

[tweber]

As far as the basic units you've outlined above, do you add anything to them? Mortars, machine guns, etc.? All those new units Vic created are just sitting there, waiting to be put into battle...

I like simple, mobile unit combinations. They allow you to go deeper in R&D trees.

[SMK-at-work]

Mortars and machineguns give power to an infantry unit at a much cheaper cost than tanks, and are cheap to upgrade.
 
Light tanks in particular are quickly made obsolete IMO.  They're a cheap tank & useful for as long as there's no great numbers of medium tanks, AT guns or bazooka's around.....but you get what you pay for and they're still a lot more expensive than foot units.  I have used them when they're all that's available, but they swiftly get supplanted by medium tanks and I hardly ever bother upgrading them past II.
 

[rickier65]

I suspect Tweber has a good handle on most efficient organization, but just to let you know, Im working on a scenario covering early Avalanche operation andI'm working with either 3 or 4 levels for organization:

Supreme HQ being a Corp Level, then with Div HQ's and thne with Regt. HQ's. I'm doing this manily to sort out some of the editor capabilities, and also just for kicks. But Im enjoying it none the less.

Rick

[tweber]

If you do have many levels of HQ organization, you may want to decrease HQ cost to 2 pp or a wily player will 'harvest' all the intermediate level HQs in the first round to get the extra pp.

[rickier65]

ORIGINAL: tweber

If you do have many levels of HQ organization, you may want to decrease HQ cost to 2 pp or a wily player will 'harvest' all the intermediate level HQs in the first round to get the extra pp.

Good point, thanks
Rick

[TPM]

ORIGINAL: tweber

If you do have many levels of HQ organization, you may want to decrease HQ cost to 2 pp or a wily player will 'harvest' all the intermediate level HQs in the first round to get the extra pp.

tweber, not sure what you mean by this. By 'harvest' do you mean disband? I wasn't aware that you receive pp's when you disband a unit?

[tweber]

Yes, you receive the cost of the counter when you disband.  So, if you can disband a lot of HQs, it is worth it as they give 5 pp per pop.  This can be saved for later when you need more counters or spent immediately on R&D.
 
Note that a basic unit counter costs 1 pp which is the same as 5 rifle.  An HQ cost 5 pp which is the same cost as a lt tank and 5 rifle.  AT is fundamentally about resource optimization.  You do not want a lot of extraneous units, especially HQ.

[Coolhnd1]

I'm still working out how best to organize my units but one thing I've noticed in your initial organization is that you only include scouts in your Mountain unit. I think this is a mistake. I find scouts are essential in just about every unit. Particularly Tank units since these units, without scouts can frequently bump right up against enemy units but have no notion about the composition of those units. Getting good intellegance is half the battle in this game and it's why I try to get at least a few scouts in virtually any unit I create.
 
 

[Banquet]

Hmm, some good idea's in this thread.

So far I've tended to keep it simple.

For an Infantry Division;

1* HQ (50 staff, 20 rifle)
3* Infantry regiment (30 Rifle, 20SMG, 3MG, 2 Inf Gun, 2 Bazooka, 3 Mortar)
1* Armoured regiment (5 Light tanks, 25 rifle)
1* Engineer regiment (40 engineers, 20 rifle)
1* Artillery regiment (10 Art, 20 Rifle)
1* AT regiment (10 AT, 20 Rifle)

All these units get sufficient trucks to carry the equipment. The HQ's get an additional 10 trucks. That really helps with mobility.

For an Armoured Division I have;

1* HQ (same as above)
5* Armoured regiment (5 medium tanks, 25 Rifles)
1* Engineers (same as above)
1* Artillery (same as above)

This generally seems to work well for me.. but I'll try some of the idea's mentioned above. I hadn't thought about adding scouts, but it sounds good!

[TPM]

ORIGINAL: tweber

Yes, you receive the cost of the counter when you disband.  So, if you can disband a lot of HQs, it is worth it as they give 5 pp per pop.  This can be saved for later when you need more counters or spent immediately on R&D.

Note that a basic unit counter costs 1 pp which is the same as 5 rifle.  An HQ cost 5 pp which is the same cost as a lt tank and 5 rifle.  AT is fundamentally about resource optimization.  You do not want a lot of extraneous units, especially HQ.

I know there were probably other factors involved, but is this one of the reasons why in your Barbarossa scenario, you have OKW HQ/Army Group HQ/Corps, leaving out the Army HQ (as in 2nd Army, 1st Pz Army, etc.) in the chain of command?

[tweber]

I'm still working out how best to organize my units but one thing I've noticed in your initial organization is that you only include scouts in your Mountain unit. I think this is a mistake. I find scouts are essential in just about every unit. Particularly Tank units since these units, without scouts can frequently bump right up against enemy units but have no notion about the composition of those units. Getting good intellegance is half the battle in this game and it's why I try to get at least a few scouts in virtually any unit I create.

I use fighters for recon. Scouts are interesting but 2x as expensive as rifle (and a different upgrade path).

I know there were probably other factors involved, but is this one of the reasons why in your Barbarossa scenario, you have OKW HQ/Army Group HQ/Corps, leaving out the Army HQ (as in 2nd Army, 1st Pz Army, etc.) in the chain of command?

Yes. But I also think the playability improves with fewer HQ. I often find my forces are hopelessly disorganized after a few turns with a lot of HQ to keep straight.

[Ande]

I keep my organisation simple: a supreme hq for supply and production and front hq's for that tasty hq bonus. my army is built around two main elemenst: the defencive infantrybased units with inf, bazookas,machineguns, atguns(whatever necessary) and the armoured reserve/spearhead unit for flexibility, these often consist of mediumtankt, infantry with halftracks(especially nice recon cap when your attacking and better mobility)and if necessary tankdestroyers. around that I have supporting artillery units and airforce. I dont have any standard units but tries to keep my units at about 50 infantr (and two halftrak and at least two tanks for the armoured units)

[seille]

Sounds like a good system Ande.
As Tom said the more HQ´s the harder to keep the overview.
Especially for supply and production routing.
Or for the staff support. You have to check all these little HQ´s for these things.
Why ? Just for having all the HQ´s in the game ?

I saw a 1939 version with so many HQ´s that i already saw me disbanding
most of them with a nice result.
I would still have a army with a lot of punch and staff support + enough extra PP to get the fighter II upgrade.
And a player who want to win will use such a chance [;)]

[TPM]

ORIGINAL: seille

Sounds like a good system Ande.
As Tom said the more HQ´s the harder to keep the overview.
Especially for supply and production routing.
Or for the staff support. You have to check all these little HQ´s for these things.
Why ? Just for having all the HQ´s in the game ?

I saw a 1939 version with so many HQ´s that i already saw me disbanding
most of them with a nice result.
I would still have a army with a lot of punch and staff support + enough extra PP to get the fighter II upgrade.
And a player who want to win will use such a chance [;)]

As far as practically and gameplay go, yeah, fewer HQ's are definitely better, but the geeky/historical side of me loves them, and this is why I love this game...I love the fact that I can create my own chain of command, etc.

[Frido1207]

Interessting reading.
Just a noob questions concerning those "slim-line" organisation.
I noticed that the "hqpw" value decreases the greater the distance is between HQ & the SF attached to them. How does it affect the morale, combat value etc. of this SF?
 

[freeboy]

I vote this thread be stickied!

[Ande]

staff increases combatstats, readiness and moral restoration as far as I understood