User avatar
Orel
Brigadier General
Posts: 442
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 8:28 pm
Location: Port-Arthur

Division composition that you use

Sun Jan 22, 2012 5:36 pm

Would anyone wish to share the ideal composition of their division sized units?

User avatar
le Anders
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 266
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2011 9:46 pm

Sun Jan 22, 2012 7:40 pm

At least one cavalry regiment, one artillery regiment, and at least half the regiments infantry. Other support units depending on whether it's a single division, or part of a corps/army stack.

User avatar
Narwhal
Posts: 792
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 4:13 pm
Location: Paris

Sun Jan 22, 2012 8:37 pm

Why put one cavalry ?

User avatar
Pat "Stonewall" Cleburne
General of the Army
Posts: 639
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 7:46 pm
Location: Kentucky

Sun Jan 22, 2012 10:00 pm

Narwhal wrote:Why put one cavalry ?


To help with retreats.

User avatar
Orel
Brigadier General
Posts: 442
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 8:28 pm
Location: Port-Arthur

Sun Jan 22, 2012 10:21 pm

Pat "Stonewall" Cleburne wrote:To help with retreats.


How might the presence of cavalry help? :confused:

User avatar
Hohenlohe
Posts: 588
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2006 4:24 pm
Location: Munich

Mon Jan 23, 2012 1:52 pm

Orel wrote:How might the presence of cavalry help? :confused:


Cavalry makes it easier to retreat because of the Screening bonus as vanguard or rearguard and to withstand enemy cavalry pursuing the own main force...this is worked out with some algorythm I assume...

greetings

Hohenlohe
R.I.P. Henry D.

In Remembrance of my Granduncle Hans Weber, a Hungaro-German Soldier,served in Austro-Hungarian Forces during WWI,war prisoner, missed in Sibiria 1918...

User avatar
le Anders
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 266
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2011 9:46 pm

Mon Jan 23, 2012 4:25 pm

Plus the extra detection value.

User avatar
germanpeon
Private
Posts: 30
Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2011 2:15 am
Location: Massachusetts

Mon Jan 23, 2012 9:57 pm

le Anders wrote:Plus the extra detection value.


This is why I do it. I just recently found out about the screening bonus, which is great.

A good rule for including support units into divisions is to include them when their ability(s) apply only to a 'unit' (read: division) rather than a stack. For example, including tanks or motorized cars into a division is a good idea because the armored support ability is wasted outside a division, but benefits all constituent elements in a division. Conversely, engineers do not need to be inside a division because their ability applies to an entire stack. So even if you only have one division in a stack, the engineer ability applies to all units and frees space for other elements to be included inside a division.

My ideal division is 3 large infantry brigades (with several inf regiments and an arty apiece), 1 tachanka, 1 tank, one elite inf, one cav, and 2 arty. I include engineers outside the divisional structure in corps size formations. I also sometimes include more infantry brigades rather than artillery inside divisions if I'm less concerned about flexibility between fronts and I just want more powerful divisions (by constructing fewer but denser and more powerful divisions).

User avatar
le Anders
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 266
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2011 9:46 pm

Mon Jan 23, 2012 10:32 pm

germanpeon wrote:This is why I do it. I just recently found out about the screening bonus, which is great.

So did I, when Hohenloe posted it.

User avatar
Orel
Brigadier General
Posts: 442
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 8:28 pm
Location: Port-Arthur

Mon Jan 23, 2012 11:39 pm

Here is what I use for the Southern whites elite divisions:

2 or 3 elite regiments(if there are 2 one is a regular), 152mm battery, howitzer(76mm or 105mm) battery, 1 tank battery, 1 armored cars platoon, and 2 infantry brigades.

for cavalry divisions: 6 cavalry regiments, two horse artillery batteries(or cavalry brigades) and an armored cars platoon.

cavalry is not included in infantry divisions since there is neither the room nor the presence of cavalry in sufficient numbers.

User avatar
OneArmedMexican
General
Posts: 582
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 4:14 pm

Tue Jan 24, 2012 12:09 am

I have wrote my thoughts on division composition as a part of an AAR recently: Who put the stranded admiral in charge? - Siberian White Short Campaign PBEM

Most of it comes down to the thoughts germanpeon has laid out here so well:

germanpeon wrote:This is why I do it. I just recently found out about the screening bonus, which is great.

A good rule for including support units into divisions is to include them when their ability(s) apply only to a 'unit' (read: division) rather than a stack. For example, including tanks or motorized cars into a division is a good idea because the armored support ability is wasted outside a division, but benefits all constituent elements in a division. Conversely, engineers do not need to be inside a division because their ability applies to an entire stack. So even if you only have one division in a stack, the engineer ability applies to all units and frees space for other elements to be included inside a division.


An added thought: engineers are pretty squishy, from my experience they fare better outside a division.

germanpeon wrote:My ideal division is 3 large infantry brigades (with several inf regiments and an arty apiece), 1 tachanka, 1 tank, one elite inf, one cav, and 2 arty.


I almost completely concur. :) I am not sure if one cavalry regiment per division is needed, though. Shouldn't one cav reg per corps suffice (for the detection as well as the screening bonus)? In my opinion, cavalry regiments are needed to provide a screen, do reconaissance and secure/raid railways. Except for a few cavalry divisions (sometimes handy as fast moving attack forces), I therefore use most cavalry regiments outside of divisions. If you still have enough cavalry to spare one for each division, fine, otherwise I think a sufficient number of scouts and raiders comes first.

germanpeon wrote:I'm less concerned about flexibility between fronts and I just want more powerful divisions (by constructing fewer but denser and more powerful divisions).


Moreover big divisions are a major advantage: most importantly it reduces the risk of losing elements (bad for NM). Also it seems to me that big divisions generally fare better in battle.

Orel wrote:Here is what I use for the Southern whites elite divisions:

2 or 3 elite regiments(if there are 2 one is a regular), 152mm battery, howitzer(76mm or 105mm) battery, 1 tank battery, 1 armored cars platoon, and 2 infantry brigades.

for cavalry divisions: 6 cavalry regiments, two horse artillery batteries(or cavalry brigades) and an armored cars platoon.

cavalry is not included in infantry divisions since there is neither the room nor the presence of cavalry in sufficient numbers.


Tanks and armoured cars within the same division is a waste. They provide the same advantages. Armoured cars are the poor man's tanks (since the lack the trench disrupter ability).

Armoured cars in cavalry divisions doesn't make much sense either. They slow the whole division down and the infantry support ability is wasted on cavalry.

User avatar
Orel
Brigadier General
Posts: 442
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 8:28 pm
Location: Port-Arthur

Tue Jan 24, 2012 12:27 am

OneArmedMexican wrote:I have wrote my thoughts on division composition as a part of an AAR recently: Who put the stranded admiral in charge? - Siberian White Short Campaign PBEM

Most of it comes down to the thoughts germanpeon has laid out here so well:



An added thought: engineers are pretty squishy, from my experience they fare better outside a division.



I almost completely concur. :) I am not sure if one cavalry regiment per division is needed, though. Shouldn't one cav reg per corps suffice (for the detection as well as the screening bonus)? In my opinion, cavalry regiments are needed to provide a screen, do reconaissance and secure/raid railways. Except for a few cavalry divisions (sometimes handy as fast moving attack forces), I therefore use most cavalry regiments outside of divisions. If you still have enough cavalry to spare one for each division, fine, otherwise I think a sufficient number of scouts and raiders comes first.



Moreover big divisions are a major advantage: most importantly it reduces the risk of losing elements (bad for NM). Also it seems to me that big divisions generally fare better in battle.



Tanks and armoured cars within the same division is a waste. They provide the same advantages. Armoured cars are the poor man's tanks (since the lack the trench disrupter ability).

Armoured cars in cavalry divisions doesn't make much sense either. They slow the whole division down and the infantry support ability is wasted on cavalry.


Initially the armored cars were included in the infantry for the while when tanks did not exist. While once the tanks arrived, I just let the armored cars stay where they were. Though now that you speak of it, it does make sense to remove the armored cars from infantry to cavalry divisions.

The cavalry divisions need the armored cars since I somewhere here have heard that they produce a similar with infantry effect with their "armored support" special ability on cavalry. Earlier, I would include tachankas, but later on I found them too slow for cavalry. And the armored cars have no effect on the speed of cavalry simply because cavalry divisions I use also have horse artillery with the same speed coefficient.

User avatar
OneArmedMexican
General
Posts: 582
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 4:14 pm

Tue Jan 24, 2012 12:32 am

Orel wrote:The cavalry divisions need the armored cars since I somewhere here have heard that they produce a similar with infantry effect with their "armored support" special ability on cavalry.


Is this reliable information? The discription of the ability states its effect is limited to infantry. If you are right, I have to thank you for teaching me something new. :)

Orel wrote:And the armored cars have no effect on the speed of cavalry simply because cavalry divisions I use also have horse artillery with the same speed coefficient.


Same coefficient but different movement type: tachankas move like medium cavalry, armoured cars are "wheeled".

User avatar
Orel
Brigadier General
Posts: 442
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 8:28 pm
Location: Port-Arthur

Tue Jan 24, 2012 12:41 am

OneArmedMexican wrote:Is this reliable information? The discription of the ability states its effect is limited to infantry. If you are right, I have to thank you for teaching me something new. :)


I asked the question here:
http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=23911

OneArmedMexican wrote:Same coefficient but different movement type: tachankas move like medium cavalry, armoured cars are "wheeled".


To me the difference in movement type is not that sufficient, since my main cavalry offensive begins during the summer when the roads are more or less usable for armored cars. What is sufficient though is the speed coefficient, which is outrageously low for the tachankas making my cavalry travel as fast as the Volunteer army shock divisions with heavy artillery.

What I shall probably do from now on is build either tachankas or extra infantry brigades to replace the armored cars slots.

User avatar
ERISS
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 2120
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2010 10:25 am
Location: France

Tue Jan 24, 2012 1:10 am

Orel wrote: the speed coefficient, which is outrageously low for the tachankas making my cavalry travel as fast as the Volunteer army shock divisions with heavy artillery.

Makhnovist tatchankas (and horse artillery), move the same as medium cavalry (Cavalry, 150).
Maybe Whites didn't know how to really use them, and their low speed is for their tactic (they use them as bad tanks, to give fire power to infantry).
Think about France 1940, who had the best tanks (of the world?, even for a 'guerre-éclair', french blitzkrieg lol), but didn't know how to react with...

User avatar
Orel
Brigadier General
Posts: 442
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 8:28 pm
Location: Port-Arthur

Tue Jan 24, 2012 1:16 am

ERISS wrote:Makhnovist tatchankas (and horse artillery), move the same as medium cavalry (Cavalry, 150).
Maybe Whites didn't know how to really use them, and their low speed is for their tactic (they use them as bad tanks, to give fire power to infantry).
Think about France 1940, who had the best tanks (of the world?, even for a 'guerre-éclair', french blitzkrieg lol), but didn't know how to react with...


The speed as the rate at which they travel with, has nothing to do with the battle maneuverability. So the justification is at the least questionable.

And towards France in 1940 I would not be so radical in opinion. But let's save this discussion for a different place.

User avatar
OneArmedMexican
General
Posts: 582
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 4:14 pm

Tue Jan 24, 2012 1:24 am

Orel wrote:I asked the question here:
http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=23911


:mdr: Delicious. This is a wonderful example of how rumours get started. Durk referred you to an AAR written by a certain Bornego who tries to explain his thoughts on division composition. But Bornego never claims that the armoured support bonus applies to cavalry. Feel free to check again, but I should know since Bornego is my user name at the Paradox forum. ;)

User avatar
Orel
Brigadier General
Posts: 442
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 8:28 pm
Location: Port-Arthur

Tue Jan 24, 2012 2:10 am

OneArmedMexican wrote: :mdr: Delicious. This is a wonderful example of how rumours get started. Durk referred you to an AAR written by a certain Bornego who tries to explain his thoughts on division composition. But Bornego never claims that the armoured support bonus applies to cavalry. Feel free to check again, but I should know since Bornego is my user name at the Paradox forum. ;)


Sorry, no bonus to cavalry. My apologies.

User avatar
Orel
Brigadier General
Posts: 442
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 8:28 pm
Location: Port-Arthur

Thu Jan 26, 2012 1:43 am

Though back to the armored cars with cavalry theme, their presence is justified since they do have twice the rate of fire, twice or even three times more elements than any other option(this means that during the battle rather than having 1 artillery or cavalry inflict a hit worth 2 strength points I have 2 or even 3 armored car platoons which inflict 6 strength points worth of damage, not touching the advantage of its' protection in battle).

User avatar
ERISS
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 2120
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2010 10:25 am
Location: France

Thu Jan 26, 2012 4:42 am

Orel wrote: back to the armored cars with cavalry

At least, in 1921 (before that I don't know) Budenny added many armor cars in its cavalry to help chasing the makhnovist cavalry from Ukraine.

User avatar
germanpeon
Private
Posts: 30
Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2011 2:15 am
Location: Massachusetts

Fri Jan 27, 2012 2:08 am

OneArmedMexican wrote:Most of it comes down to the thoughts germanpeon has laid out here so well:

Thanks! That means a lot coming from a seasoned MP veteran such as yourself.

OneArmedMexican wrote:An added thought: engineers are pretty squishy, from my experience they fare better outside a division.

Absolutely, and once I realized that their effect covers an entire stack, my whole recruiting scheme changed. Before I was assigning one per front line division, clearly a huge waste in hindsight.

OneArmedMexican wrote:I almost completely concur. I am not sure if one cavalry regiment per division is needed, though. Shouldn't one cav reg per corps suffice (for the detection as well as the screening bonus)? In my opinion, cavalry regiments are needed to provide a screen, do reconaissance and secure/raid railways. Except for a few cavalry divisions (sometimes handy as fast moving attack forces), I therefore use most cavalry regiments outside of divisions. If you still have enough cavalry to spare one for each division, fine, otherwise I think a sufficient number of scouts and raiders comes first.

I'm kicking myself even more than I did for my engineer flub. You're right, only one cavalry regiment per stack or corps is needed for the bonuses.

I totally agree about scouting, raiding, and MC increasing (rails and cities) being a priority for cavalry. When I do have enough cavalry for these tasks (arguably this never happens, you can always use more) I tend to build one or two cavalry divisions if I have commanders with appropriate abilities (Shkuro would be a good example, if he weren't so useful as a regular divisional or corps commander) to clean up enemy forces in my hinterland (greens!), quickly reinforce threatened strategic points, and seize targets of opportunity.

OneArmedMexican wrote:Moreover big divisions are a major advantage: most importantly it reduces the risk of losing elements (bad for NM). Also it seems to me that big divisions generally fare better in battle.


This. I believe that is one of the large advantages that the Reds have: the potential for much larger divisions. I am almost completely ignorant of how combat calculations work but my understanding is that because larger divisions spread incoming damage more, cohesion losses are also spread, thus increasing the ability of a unit (be it a regiment or a division) to fight longer and suffer fewer losses of elements.

User avatar
Orel
Brigadier General
Posts: 442
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 8:28 pm
Location: Port-Arthur

Sat Feb 25, 2012 11:37 pm

Modified my division composition as my experience in PBEMs indicated.

Now I usually divide divisions in three types for Southern Whites:
1. Elite Kornilov, Drozdowsky, Markov and Alexeev Divisions.
These are my assault and shock troops. Each contains about 15000 men.
They contain: 3 infantry brigades, from 3 to 1 Elite Infantry regiments, from 1 to two(to cover the absent elite infantry regiments in case they are absent) regular infantry regiments, one 152mm and one howitzer(76mm or 105mm) and an armoured cars or tanks platoon.

2. Regular infantry divisions. They have all leftover artillery and infantry, occasionally getting one armoured cars unit not needed anymore by the Elite divisions.

3. Cossack infantry. They get at least one artillery unit, occasionally get one armoured cars unit, while the rest is infantry or mixed cavalry and infantry detachments.

My cavalry divisions now, to save war supplies for armoured trains, have usually 6 cavalry regiments and three horse artillery or two horse artillery and a cavalry brigade unit.

For Siberians I have two types of infantry divisions:
1. Shock Siberian Divisions. These are my main force, whose objective is to battle the Reds in the most decisive battles. They consist of 2 infantry brigades, and up to 4 regular infantry regiments(occasionally one regular infantry is replaced with a trained to regular level militia unit), two artillery batteries(105mm howitzer and 76mm howitzer or 76mm field cannon), and one armoured car or tank platoon.

2. Cossack infantry divisions. My garrison and land capturing units. They are meant to be auxiliary troops that allow my shock divisions to prepare for battles alone. They consist of 6 Cossack regiments and 3 76mm field cannon artilleкy batteries.

Cavalry divisions are composed of cavalry regiments and horse artillery and seldom receive any other troops in their structure.
For united Russia!

User avatar
Narwhal
Posts: 792
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 4:13 pm
Location: Paris

Thu Oct 11, 2012 10:55 pm

Question I was wondering : would it be useful to, say, add transmission elements or other "useless in combat" elements to an incomplete combat brigade to "suck up" damage ? I rarely use the bonus in CP.

User avatar
Orel
Brigadier General
Posts: 442
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 8:28 pm
Location: Port-Arthur

Fri Oct 12, 2012 2:54 am

Narwhal wrote:Question I was wondering : would it be useful to, say, add transmission elements or other "useless in combat" elements to an incomplete combat brigade to "suck up" damage ? I rarely use the bonus in CP.


Like engineers, medical service and airfields? I suppose they take little damage, since they are considered non-first line troops(often as support units). Similar with artillery(which is the last thing to be destroyed in combat). Though one could very effectively use armored trains in defense for such occasions, due to their high protection value. But that's just my opinion.
For united Russia!

Return to “Revolution Under Siege”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest