What formations do people like to use?

[newageofpower]

OHQ commanders can add absurd amounts of combat ability. I just assaulted and wiped out superior numbers of AI battledress/laser rifle infantry with my gauss/combat armor infantry because my commander gave +1200%, and its possible to get even higher skills and rolls.

[BlueTemplar]

Then you are *really* missing out on postures and OHQ commander bonuses !

[KarisFraMauro]

Postures can be fun, although I suspect I'm only scratching the surface with them. Generally it's blitz for tanks and infiltration for infantry, but not much other than that. If you have a really experienced leader the operational headquarters bonuses become truly nuts, if somewhat random.

[yutowap33]

Postures can also save your life, notably 'defense' and later 'fluid defense' posture. (Entrenchment might be nice too if you have a choke point in high entrenchment area but I personally haven't used it yet.)

Also in my current game I was forced to park a brigade just outside my capital, so I turned into bootcamp (Field training posture) allowing me to send less then green troops to fight on the front. (although this requires a little hassle, playing with admin quality settings)

[Uemon]

Its also a lot more additional clicking and micro; the way i play the game and deploy my armies, i simply outplay the opponent so i dont need all those bonuses and cards. Trust me, it works just fine.

[Uemon]

For example my current game:

[AgentFransis]

Not using OHQs by the mid game is like fighting with militia. Good commanders give insane multipliers that can increase attack and HP x5, x10 or more, completely overshadowing almost any tech or quality difference when fighting against independent units. Finding and nurturing good commanders is always my top human resources priority. Any cap IV or V leader with a decent war stat, regardless of skills, immediately gets a brigade and goes to fight something.

Using OHQ brigades barely hurts flexibility or mobility. The only exception being when I want the bulk of my forces to be walkers which is currently impossible due to having no OOBs for them. But infantry with attached walkers is good enough.

[yutowap33]

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

Personally I tend to attach special purposse units (artillery and tanks) as independant Batallions.

Same here. Although used to rely mainly on buggies, followed by artillery. These along with couple GR units from cards to punch through is usually all I needed early on. More recently, I had to rush RPG battalions to deal with majors.

As for tanks they are costly, and put a huge strain on my economy, aside of one battalion for field testing, I generally field them later as full on brigades for the offensive push.

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?

And for mixed in tanks, the unit can only move as slow as the infantry wasting a lot of power of the tank. Plus the tank might be "dragged" into very infavorable terrain or the whole unit might be blocked from going into mountains because the tanks can not follow.

Yeah, I tried to make infantry tanks, but overall the whole design and management process is unfavorable to this.

[Uemon]

ORIGINAL: AgentFransis

Not using OHQs by the mid game is like fighting with militia.

Thats simply not true. You cant win a game with militias because you dont have control over reinforcements (well maybe you can but it would be absurdly difficult). You absolutely can win games with independent units and its not particularly difficult either.

[BlueTemplar]

This is a very good point, I learned the hard way with Sword of the Stars 2 that against the AI it's often just not worth it to give your all if it involves insane amounts of extra management.
EDIT : And even against a human opponent, it's not very sportsmanlike to do this when you're clearly winning, since it slows the game down.

[AgentFransis]

ORIGINAL: Uemon

ORIGINAL: AgentFransis

Not using OHQs by the mid game is like fighting with militia.

Thats simply not true. You cant win a game with militias because you dont have control over reinforcements (well maybe you can but it would be absurdly difficult). You absolutely can win games with independent units and its not particularly difficult either.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole

Of course you can win, the AI is dumb. And you can use whatever house rules you want. Just be aware that your army is many times weaker than it's intended to be.

[Uemon]

ORIGINAL: AgentFransis

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole

Of course you can win, the AI is dumb. And you can use whatever house rules you want. Just be aware that your army is many times weaker than it's intended to be.

Yes it is, but only in the most literal sense of the meaning. You get more combat ability IN HEX. Ok. BUT you pay that with a more complicated recruitment - takes more manpower for large formations; you need to maintain certain distance from leading unit or you lose those bonuses and you need to maintain leaders, which is additional resources and micromanagemnet.

With independent units you lose hex combat bonus, but you dont need to worry about any distance, you can move whatever you want wherever you want; you are not limited by manpower; you can pick and choose what you want to recruit per unit (a massive advantage) and there is no leadership micromanagement or need to take care of them because if they die you just lost basically the entire purpose of having that formation.

What im trying to tell you is that i can customize a fighting force and if terrain permits it, use it in such a manner, that formation hex combat bonus becomes irrelevant.

[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...)

And 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...

But of course this probably requires even MORE micromanagement, and you still need to discover and develop the OOBs for the specialists that you want.

[AgentFransis]

More complicated? On the contrary, recruiting in bulk saves clicks and micro. Assigning leaders is a one time action. I can customize my fighting force too so I'm not even sure what you're talking about really.

[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?

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: BlueTemplarAnd But of course this probably requires even MORE micromanagement, and you still need to discover and develop the OOBs for the specialists that you want.

Yup, by the time i discover fancy OOBs im either running independent tank battalions or im switching to walkers.

[Uemon]

ORIGINAL: AgentFransis

More complicated? On the contrary, recruiting in bulk saves clicks and micro.

Leaders have personalities, stats and loyalties. They can die, which means they have to be replaced. If they indeed get to have "epic" stats, you will take care of them, which means they will be on your mind.

ORIGINAL: AgentFransis Assigning leaders is a one time action. I can customize my fighting force too so I'm not even sure what you're talking about really.

I am in turn 32 starting to recruit light tanks.

Here is the selection of formations i can raise: https://imgur.com/a/dldXK2B

How would you customize your formation to counter my tanks?

[AgentFransis]

Yes leaders have personalities, which is a big part of what makes this game interesting. You need to manage commanders the same way you manage all the rest of your leaders.

I am in turn 32 starting to recruit light tanks.

Here is the selection of formations i can raise: https://imgur.com/a/dldXK2B

How would you customize your formation to counter my tanks?

Weird question. I'll make the best AT battalions I can and attach them to my infantry brigades. Long term I'll either make some dedicated medium tank hunter brigades, attach some heavy tanks to my light tank brigades or add light/heavy walkers depending on enemy tank numbers, terrain and tech.

[Uemon]

ORIGINAL: AgentFransis

Yes leaders have personalities, which is a big part of what makes this game interesting. You need to manage commanders the same way you manage all the rest of your leaders.

Ill paraphrase Stalin here: Commanders - problem. No commanders - no problems. You need to manage commanders? Says who

ORIGINAL: AgentFransis
Weird question. I'll make the best AT battalions I can and attach them to my infantry brigades. Long term I'll either make some dedicated medium tank hunter brigades, attach some heavy tanks to my light tank brigades or add light/heavy walkers depending on enemy tank numbers, terrain and tech.

Its not a weird question at all, its purpose was to demonstrate how quickly you can pop light tanks battalions (its doable in less than 25 turns). And light tanks will wipe out any starting infantry - directly in combat and through maneuver. Your way to counter a problem that will pop on turn 25-30 is to use a set up that will take you 50 turns+ to achieve.

Edit: actually how do you feel about a challenge? Ill send you my current world start save, and lets compare what we achieve by turn 100?

[AgentFransis]

Dude:

I'll make the best AT battalions I can and attach them to my infantry brigades

Or just leave them independent. You are aware that you can attach independent units to OHQs, yes?
In an early war I'll recruit whatever I can obviously. Later it's OHQs only for the main army.

[yutowap33]

ORIGINAL: AgentFransis

More complicated? On the contrary, recruiting in bulk saves clicks and micro. Assigning leaders is a one time action. I can customize my fighting force too so I'm not even sure what you're talking about really.

Indeed. Also OHO color coding helps distinguish and manage large frontlines. And IMO reduce micro management in terms of upgrade, I use a standard setting for pushing low quality troops back to SHQ for use of independent city garrisons, and prioritize high exp quality troops for frontline OHO troops.

ORIGINAL: AgentFransis
Or just leave them independent. You are aware that you can attach independent units to OHQs, yes?

Indeed, attach and re-attach as needed. Right now I have more independent battalions than those attached to OHO, which I shift as needed in support of mainline troops on different fronts.

Btw, here is my current low intensity front with a major. I had to throw everything I had to push them back and secure this easily defensible choke point, but now there is nothing they can do, allowing me to shift my attention the other major.