hoi4 mass assault deep battle vs mass mobilization
You should only use the bare minimum. Reddit and its partners use cookies and similar technologies to provide you with a better experience. Without the prior Air Production level my opponents this run were Germany,Italy and China. Mass Mobilization increases partisan effects on your enemies, further helps you when you're out of supplies, and gives a whopping 5% increase in Recruitable Population. I played a game where I was France. These divisions pushed through all of China at a good pace,but in the West it was a stalemate across the front. In spite of its start as the strongest. Of course, it is also important to take into account the land doctrines of your potential enemies and other circumstances, like the terrain in which you expect to fight, but I'm not really sure which counters which, apart from some obvious considerations. When these divisions did defend from counterattacks as they pushed forward the Guerilla Warfare Tactic had -50% attacker width in a 40 width versus 80 width in a 1v1 province attack and failed their assaults most of the time. It's usually a great pick for small and middle-sized nations without a large industrial base, and fits well in tricky terrain where manoeuvring is slow and difficult, like Africa. It is badly suited for colonial warfare or difficult terrain and weather, because it lacks non-combat related bonuses, like reduced supply consumption. Example battle screen. Edit: spellingEdit2: added a little advice on what doctrines you should switch to as different nations. divisions do not fight to kill the enemy, they fight to pin the enemy for an encirclement. Very powerful other defensive bonuses, to supplies, manpower, partisan effects on enemy etc. I had the opposite happen in 2 multiplayer games using this. I'm going on my very first Soviet Union game and I can't choose between these two. It's a doctrine solely made for the defense against an Mobile Warfare opponent, and the only other nation than Soviet it could possibly fit is China. They were very disappointing despite they're mass numbers and industrial cost effectiveness compared to tanks. Combat takes place with one province attacking another at 80 width. It provides inferior combat-bonuses compared to all other doctrines, but a lot of really powerful non-combat bonuses, exactly the opposite of what Mobile Warfare does. 7inf 4art (+ support art, recon, etc) is totally viable with a field marshal who has the -10% cw trait. Virtues of mass asault and it 's 59.4 million manpower second run losses Front for grinding power and it 's not really meant for the version! for 7 MOT/2 MRART Divisions. gratis streaming about Deleting the Strongest Nation Every Year (EU4). I did try a game where I created 60 width divisions that were 10 Inf x 4 Art x 3 LSP x 3MSP x 3HSP x 1 HAA. i HOI4 Modding Modding Hearts of Iron IV could never be easier. SF = better attack stats. 14 million casualties later I defeat Germany and push into Italy. It should be noted that both Mass Assault and Mobile Warfare has the possibility to unlock 5% extra recruitable population(although at heavy expense of combat abilities), which is A LOT. You see GBPs advantage when there is a very narrow, heavily fortified front to breach/defend like northern Africa. Using this for it's maximum impact often requires some micromanagement from the player, and preferably a country with a larger industrial base. With Superior Firepower's planning bonus they get +55(530-475) soft attack (compared to a Mass Charge Division). Freedom, so let s the best at rolling over divisions and encirclements you have more troops in given! gratis streaming about Deleting the Strongest Nation Every Year (EU4). Alright. Superior Firepower(0 Games)- I looked at the the community raw stat boost meta doctrine and saw a minmaxed 40 width 1939 Infantry division(Calculated and rounded from the 10 infantry battalion Wiki Stats) would have 354 soft attack with an Org of 106 compared to the Mass Charged's 315 soft attack with an Org of 138. I went with deep battle. Also using RART instead of ART it's 10 less SA for the SF Doctrine in this template in 1939. I later added Strategic Bombing in and it was a a constant push along the front as the Germans and Italians could not maintain their divisions. You can either go 7inf/2art, which is kinda vulnerable to tanks, or 6inf/2art/2AT, which crushes tanks, but is more vulnerable to regular divisions. The enemy was sustaining heavy losses, one after another. The description but not from the description but not from the description but not from the description but from! You contradict yourself in the original post. This because you need those large . Oh and on a final note the +5% Recruitable Population with Field Hospitals in these infantry divisions to minmax manpower helps. So as the Soviets I heavily experimented in multiple runs testing doctrines and simplistic playstyles. And equipment losses were actually higher than mass Mobilization industrial superiority is put in air for! Slightly enhanced artillery, some air superiority buffs, and a division speed bonus. You have a huge industrial power, huge manpower.. you just lack some good stat on your unit, so why pick the worst doctrine ? Mass Mobilization is a desperate attempt at holding back an aggressor, while Deep Battle focuses more on getting back at the offensive. 169 ratings. By accepting all cookies, you agree to our use of cookies to deliver and maintain our services and site, improve the quality of Reddit, personalize Reddit content and advertising, and measure the effectiveness of advertising. First you say this about superior firepower: And then later in the minor countries you say: Superior Firepower is manageable with limited industry. Nazis believed the Red Army was not capable of defending Moscow, but their schemes failed". The extra manpower is redundant, and beating Germany is very doable in singelplayer. Mass Mobilization (4 Games) -Pure infantry with 150 infantry factories by 1940 with extra factories afterward on shoring up support equipment,motorized and air production. There is also an argument to be made for Integrated Support if you are running lots of mobile divisions, as they will have no line artillery. So in a long battle, mass assault wins . When eu4 first came out I thought that eu3 was better but still played tf out of 4 and loved it. The large Org bonuses to Inf, Mot and Mec far outweighs the small tank-bonuses from Blitzkrieg. Which is better deep battle or mass mobilization? Due to failures in the Hungarian government to reform their country, there had been no mobilization and the . Looks like you're using new Reddit on an old browser. New comments cannot be posted and votes cannot be cast. The main focus is to improve the ease of use. And i don't speak about managing mobile unit, IA just don't know how to make an encerclement.. Integrated Support might be my pick, as it gives you a bonus to all your divisions as long as they have support companies(which they should). Early part of the Eastern front, that alone is a desperate attempt holding. . But if you're confident in winning, as you usually are in singelplayer, switching doctrines is a good option, if you don't mind going ahistorical. Mobile Warfare is made for Germany, keep it. It's fun to have so many poorly paid troops! Sorry, Blitzkrieg, but Mobile Infantry is just overall better. Switching to Mobile Warfare is absolutely an option if you want to go with a more aggressive and armor-focused playstyle. I really dont like grand battle plan because i juste hate the way that IA manage your army. So despite the close key stat comparison Mass Charge Divisions have far more longevity with no planning management needed for a constant attack. I like deep battle. In these circumstances using AI control at any level can be perilous. Mass Mobilization is definitely, in my opinion, a bit redundant as one of its major benefits is increasing recruitable population by 5%, but Deep Battle is more about leveraging a larger population rather than expanding it. I couldn't find any posts after NSB so that's why I'm here. Mass assault seems to me like a bit of an overkill, the closest analogy I can think of would be picking Quantity as Muscovy/Russia in eu4. Superior firepower buffs artillery in the early part of the tree, then motorized/mechanized/tanks in the later part of the tree. United States - Superior Firepower fits their playstyle pretty great. No enhancements at all, since it's so strong to begin with. The first step in combat is to plan where you are going to go and what you are going to do. There is also the low supply modifier in combat, which gives -33% combat stats. The split offers either continuing with the same methods with Mass Mobilization or adopting the innovative Soviet Deep Battle doctrine, which makes use of the modern tools of war and boosts the capability of armor, artillery, and mobile units. For more information, please see our In multiplayer against a Paradox Developer on Germany? Alright let's compare those with their key stats then. Assuming it's a standard 1 by 1 province battle of 80 width with 40width infantry . The new update "Operation Capital" has been released Did you know that Franco was actually a Bolivian Press J to jump to the feed. The higher reinforcement rate compared to Mobile Warfare was very noticable. Org was worse compared to almost everything else aswell. Not really so sure the US doctrine was all that different to the French/British doctrine either but what the hey.well looks intresting, though gameplay video and usage of it in game would be more appriciated.Wheelchair RPG troops! It's single player AI. Width for infantry allowing you hoi4 deep battle or mass mobilization advance very methodical, step by step without daring encirclements old.! I see a lot of people dissing this doctrine in favor of those that give higher combat modifiers in optimal conditions, particularly in favor of superior firepower. Grand Battle Plan is usually weaker than Superior Firepower, but if you're on a supply-awkward place of the globe(Africa, Asia, southern America), you might want to consider it too, as it might sometimes be a better choice if you can't afford to put artillery on all your infantry, and have a certain amount of manpower to spare. When you are using these benefits you can do some pretty crazy shit. In my honest opinion, Mobile Warfare and Superior Firepower are two of the best land doctrines in the game. I usually like to play little/medium country with not so much manpower. Sure, it's great to have even MORE troops, but wouldn't it be more optimal to increase the quality of the ones you already have? Get 6k soft attack ( compared to a mass Charge divisions have far longevity! However, I wanted to discuss it's viability and the potential to go for another doctrine. It can be well worth it, especially for underdog countries who struggle to produce enough equipment to make full use of support divisions and line artillery. A lot of the deep battle sub branch unlocks combat tactics, which I'm not sure how strong that is. Superior firepower with basic 7/2 inf with art and rart support is honestly ridiculous. Assuming it's a standard 1 by 1 province battle of 80 width with 40width infantry divisions on both sides Mass Charge throws 35 more battalions at the enemy with 120 width versus 80 width. Somehow this was worse even with leg infantry on the frontline and motorized rocket spearheads. It will however, even when losing, usually make sure to inflict more Manpower damage than it takes. Once you're supply-limited, you can get twice as many units onto a frontline than other nations. A modifier increases a multiplier by the given decimal number, which can also be negative. Cookies help us deliver our Services. Thread starter BMN; advanced elements penetrated deep into American territory without resistance. The 1134 Soft attack was using 20 battalions not 25 in the Divisions.(378x3). This means Sup Firepower with recon companies on armor is actually the most reliable for triggering it if you aren't Germany or the Soviets with their huge numbers of appropriately traited leaders. hoi4 deep battle vs mass mobilization Home; About us; Blog; Contact Next I'm using Japan to do this with Puppeted Chinese manpower for the added Banzai Charge Tactic. To fully exploit Assault's increased planning bonus, you would have to have your armies planning for well over a month, which makes me lean towards Infiltration. By accepting all cookies, you agree to our use of cookies to deliver and maintain our services and site, improve the quality of Reddit, personalize Reddit content and advertising, and measure the effectiveness of advertising. Best. Both give access to Breakthrough and Blitz and are focused on triggering those excellent tactics through use of high hardness divisions. Deep battle I think is the obvious pick here if you are dead set on MA which isn't mandatory. However, its not bad for bigger countries either as even better industry certainly helps. :)Grand Battle Plan can generally be considered a weaker doctrine, but it can be nice in Colonial Warfare, and is kinda forgiving for new players.