Best HOI4 Combat Widths In 2024 | HOI4 Guide

[@MachiavellianStrategist]

To make this video, I made large use of an amazingly well done spreadsheet, which I found on Reddit. I am NOT the author of the spreadsheet nor of the Reddit post, so all credits to u/Emzatin. Here is a link to the original reddit post: www.reddit.com/r/hoi4/comments/1766m1p/combat_width_meta_after_aat_improved_calculation/ I made 3 additional videos, which perfectly integrate this guide: - Best Division Templates (previously members only): kzbin.info/www/bejne/qqm4pKBuf7qafMk - Best Tank Designs (previously members only): kzbin.info/www/bejne/j5XWY6B7qrugd6c - Best Plane Designs: (previously members only) kzbin.info/www/bejne/m6S9faiBiKx3o7c Becoming a member is mainly a way to show your support to the channel and to help keeping it alive and active. If you are interested, or if you wish to help the channel, you can become a member and get access to all perks through this link: kzbin.info/door/1c01Sz-D_aNEUEbUBxwUJQjoin For even more exclusive content, make sure to join our: Discord server: discord.gg/e5WQFf5qDr Instagram: instagram.com/machiavellianstrategist USEFUL LINKS --------------------------------------------------- My latest templates & designs: kzbin.info/aero/PLY4d0TUsYg8KCFGQl9nYPjFnXN0N5ERze All of my country guides: kzbin.info/aero/PLY4d0TUsYg8LQ6kW3_94GhRJaHn3ZlalP

[@TuanAnh-sc8yz]

Obviously a combat width of 1 is the best combat width. It can fit in into all terrain types.

[@MachiavellianStrategist]

Indeed!

[@MachiavellianStrategist]

But actually, you just gave me an idea for a future challenge! And entire run with only the very red widths!

[@brandonneilsta.teresa3494]

OK, Mountain General fanboy

[@danielgloyd4529]

Fear my 1 division anti air army, with full support companies.

[@josepsamarrafarre]

Great video as always! Some things I would add are that: - it also depends on the type of player you are because if you like to micromanage then it makes sense to min-max your divisions to adapt them to the terrain you are going to fight in (difficult terrains like mountains or jungles are good examples) otherwise, if you prefer leaving everything at x5 speed to the A.I. and you just give general offensives, then forget about widths because the machine will choose whatever divisions are available at the moment of combat. - it also becomes a problem if you rely on your allies or puppets because they will create their onw divisions with non-optimal widths and will even support offensive and defensive battles even when it makes no sense. - We used to get Generals by spending PPs but, with the changes in the lastest DLCs, some countries are now very limited when it comes to Command Power (due to super low War Support) and just can't easily promote generals despite having lots of manpower and Land XPs (you need 5CP extra for each general that you already have). In that case it makes sense to go for "higher tier" widths to deploy more manpower without increasing the number of divisions.

[@MachiavellianStrategist]

Thank you! Yes I totally agree with you, ultimately your playstyle is the decisive factor. Not only in terms of how much you should care about combat widths, but also in which ones you should ultimately choose! Optimizing combat widths is a good skill to posses, and it can be fun too! What I feel like part of the community (especially on reddit) fails to see, is that combat widths are not the only thing that matters, nor the most important one.

[@ezganks71]

I’ve always used 18 with paratroopers and they have done pretty well for me but now I think I’m going to make 20 with for when I drop onto city hubs.

[@MachiavellianStrategist]

Both will definitely perform very well!

[@quentin6763]

I just discovered your channel and honestly this is perfect ! Thank you for all these tutorials and I hope you'll make more of them in the future ! I've a lot of hours (surely too much xD) on this game but I've still a lot to learn and I had no idea about all these width theories ! Keep up the amazing work and thank you for sharing your knowledge !

[@MachiavellianStrategist]

Thank you for your nice comment and welcome to the channel! More content will be coming soon!

[@Eschkabibbel]

Holy heck, this was very, very useful! Thank you!

[@MachiavellianStrategist]

@@Eschkabibbel you are welcome!

[@fuglbird]

I like the way you explain this. Knowledge and common sense is always a good combination. Thank you.

[@MachiavellianStrategist]

Thank you so much for your comment! Really appreciated!

[@luddviz3968]

Thank you man! I'm 100 houres into the game but my divisions allwayes semes usless becuse of this. This is the first and only acuall breakedown about combath width I have gotten so far. Thx agien!!!!

[@MachiavellianStrategist]

@@luddviz3968 you are welcome! Let me know if you have any questions!

[@gudmundursteinar]

There is a one true width that is best. 20. 20 combat width will fit perfectly into any battle where 3 tiles attack 1; no matter the combat width. You can make other widths for specialist tasks, e.g garrison, a combination of 10s and 20s will fit any combat withd for any one tile defence. 40, 35, 30, 25 for attacking specific tiles, often at 1-1 or 2-1.However, at 3-1 you use 20, at 4-1 you have a great advantage at 5-1 you really should be attacking the one tile they get supply through. So Garrisons 10 Line defence 20 General attack 20 Specialist attack 25, 30, 35 and 40 depending on terrain.

[@MachiavellianStrategist]

If you followed my reasoning in the video you already know what I think about a "one true best width" hehe. That being said, 20 is a good width indeed. With some careful micromanagement, such as the one you mentioned, it can be elevated to an even higher level of efficiency.

[@destruyeabuelas2004]

I think 24 is okay also, but not for mountains

[@mrshadow6968]

Thanks bro

[@MachiavellianStrategist]

Thank you!

[@DrewPicklesTheDark]

I generally use 20 for most things, 25 for mountaineers since mountains are so awful I'm willing to make a special division for breaking through them, and a special 35 for when playing as big boys with lots of industry and open terrain (Germany, USSR, etc.).

[@MachiavellianStrategist]

I agree that a dedicated division for the mountains is usually worth it! 35 is also a very solid width, especially for armored divisions!

[@cloudkelsey]

Sure you don't only use your mountaineers in the mountains but with how mountains can be such a tough nut to crack the 25 width for them makes it much easier overall. Yeah you can force it, but 24/25 combat width for the terrain types works well but again mountains are where teeth get chipped. In multiplayer I like to invade Italy as the allies, its something way too many axis players just don't account for and its something that they absolutely HAVE to address as it knocks out most of a players economy as well as threatens that soft underbelly. You can invade all along the cost, cut the boot above the calf and have a very good defensive mountain line. They'll have to throw units including tanks to cover it. This ends up being an allied advantage because the USA should be spinning up quick and can outpace German armor production with Germany grinding on the eastern front (now there's less tanks on the eastern front giving the soviets more of a chance). Then you make your D-day landing and you have less to do deal with than before and again the German armor is out of position, if they reposition too many tanks to the D-day beaches you can push through Italy. Also mountaineer wise Japan can make very good use of them when fighting China with Japan's special forces cap decision. Ends up being very useful for taking Hill/Mountain tiles which China has in high abundance but also for attacking over the mountains into the Raj. You don't need a pile of them but a few of them can be very effective especially on annoying mountain tiles in the SW of China and Communist China.

[@MachiavellianStrategist]

Hi! You raised some very good points, and I totally agree with you. 25 width mountaineers can indeed be very good, especially in the right hands. However, I would also consider you to be part of the category of experienced players who make and use mountaineers mostly for some specific purposes. Maybe not only in the mountains, but still with some precise aims, such as the ones you mentioned. My reasoning in this video is aimed at the average player, who is less likely use mountaineers in such a dedicated way, and might actually benefit more from making a 27 or 30w template instead.

[@danielgloyd4529]

Anything between 14 and 27 is totally fine for most things. The only time I aim for specific widths is tanks or marines. Tanks are going to mostly be attacking terrains with 35 width, so I do that. My marines are usually 40 width to take urban areas that have a port or 35 to land on plains with port depending on who I am invading.

[@MachiavellianStrategist]

Absolutely agree! Although with tanks I really like 35 and 36 widths too, they work amazingly and with the extra stats they punch really hard!

[@danielgloyd4529]

@MachiavellianStrategist your comment made me realize I typo'd all my 30s should have been 35s. It was too early, and yours was the first recommended video I watched when I woke.

[@MachiavellianStrategist]

@@danielgloyd4529 that's very nice to hear hehe!

[@FusionTrain]

i genuinely dont understand why people say that 15 width is the best, whenever i try and use it, i end up not being able to get through any enemy units

[@MachiavellianStrategist]

I personally prefer larger widths too, especially for offensive purposes. The reason 15 is considered particularly good is that it has very good stats per width, it fits a lot of terrains and it is very flexible. For example, if you use 2 15w divisions together, you will get the same offensive potential as a 30w division (actually slightly better in terms of stats) with the added flexibility of being able to use them separately. All of that being said, I find smaller widths to perform extremely well especially defensively, while larger ones get the upper hand when attacking.

[@wendydelisse9778]

This video would be good for Hearts of Iron 4 fans who only enter a like for the sake of bookmarking to enter an upvote. In past years I have posted in a few KZbin comment sections, and perhaps in live chat as well, that Combat Width was over-rated, even in the first few years of Hearts of Iron 4 when in every terrain Combat Space was in multiples of 40. Combat Width is especially over-rated when combat fronts are not approximately saturated, when each side has no more than 1/2 of the Combat Space collectively covered by army divisions that are either in combat or else in the combat queue. If I am defending Hamburg for example with 2 entrenched divisions of 17 Combat Width against a sea invasion from 24 enemy divisions, and some Italian division shows up in the middle of the battle with 25 Organization to help defend Hamburg, then I care little whether that Italian division has some particular Combat Width like 16 or 17 or 18 or 19 or 20 Combat Width. I care much more that the enemy has to deplete 25 more Organization before the enemy can conquer Hamburg. People pay too much attention to Combat Width, and not enough attention to the metric of Organization per Combat Width. A division with 40 or more Combat Width has great difficulty in contributing more than 1 Organization per Combat Width to a battle, unlike a smaller division which can very easily contribute about 1 1/4 Organization per Combat Width.

[@MachiavellianStrategist]

I agree with you, isn't that the point I'm also trying to make in this video?

[@wendydelisse9778]

Yes, your video was indeed very good at making the point that being specific on having some particular Combat Width is often over-rated. Your video is worthwhile for many players of Hearts of Iron 4 to bookmark. The important metric of Organization per Combat Width was omitted however, although that metric was alluded to with your statement that smaller than 40 Combat Width divisions allow more flexibility. Big divisions tend to provide too little Organization per Combat Width. Small divisions of less than 120 HP tend to have too small of a metric of HP per Organization, resulting in poor gain in division Experience from combat, or even loss of division Experience from combat. In reality, the following set of 3 metrics will be subject to trends of being over-rated and under-rated: 1. Combat Width (currently over-rated) 2. Organization per Combat Width (often not taken into account by newer players, resulting in double sized divisions that too easily give up on a combat) 3. HP per Organization (currently under-rated, resulting in newer players staying with smaller game start divisions in countries like Portugal and Spain for too long into the game.) For metrics 2 and 3, too little is bad. For metric 2, you want at least 1 Organization per Combat Width, especially in defensive divisions. For metric 3, you want at least 2 HP per Organization. You might be able to post a video on all 3 of those metrics, using your typical division designs as overall good examples, and using defeated enemy divisions as bad examples of one or more of those 3 metrics. If you defeat a Portuguese game start infantry division of 4 Combat Width as an example, you can point out that with a metric of well under 2 HP per Organization, the health bar in that Portuguese division dropped so low that even if you let that Portuguese division recover, almost all of its Experience would be gone. People learn best from seeing both good examples and bad examples.

[@MachiavellianStrategist]

@@wendydelisse9778 oh sorry, I must have misread your first comment! Thank you, you also always bring up some very good practical examples which are greatly appreciated!

[@wendydelisse9778]

A playthrough by you as a minor power like the Guangxi Clique could probably be used by you as an example of good division design evolution in a low or middle level minor power. You start off with two research slots with the Guangxi Clique. You would in 1936 probably mostly devote 1 research slot mostly to industry techs, likely racing to Excavation 1 before going on toward increasing the efficiency cap and going on toward Concentrated Industry 1, since you have the right amount of steel and tungsten and chromium to be worth increasing, and since you only start off with 3 Military Factories to improve the efficiency of. The second research slot would probably at first go toward the 1936 era computing tech, in order to help your industrial research slot do its job faster, and then go on to doing some artillery research, since you have the resource types to go heavy on producing items made available from the artillery research tree, and then go on with the second research slot to get the Infantry Equipment 1 research done. Basic Infantry Equipment is the cheapest training weapon for building up the number of your divisions, but once you have enough divisions, you want your soldiers in established divisions to have weapons with twice as much Soft Attack, leaving behind the cheap WW1 era infantry weapons for future divisions in their own recruitment phase to break during their own training. Once artillery research is underway, it will be about the right time to construct Military Factory number 4. In 1936 and perhaps in some of 1937, work can be done on Infrastructure, or on building a Civilian Factory, with a primary goal of such work being faster future construction of Military Factories, and a secondary goal in the case of Infrastructure to have faster extraction rates of steel and chromium and tungsten. Overall, the division design evolution of the Guanxi clique will be away from total dependence on infantry weapons, and toward more dependence on towed artillery, and perhaps eventually moving toward some tank use as well. Typical first conquest target of the Guangxi Clique will be the warlord region to the west, beginning but not necessarily completing before Japan starts its move to conquer Beijing. Infantry battalions, once armed with infantry weapons 1, have an excellent metric of Soft Attack per Supply Usage, as do towed artillery battalions. Overland supplies when invading the warlord region to the west can become very bad. However, since you start off with a couple of well-supplied airfields, and since Command Power gets acquired fairly quickly by the Guangxi Clique, creating or buying transport planes for the sake of supply drops is an option. The warlord region to the west is too poor to acquire airplanes or to install anti-air facilities for shooting down your transport planes. In any event, with highly supply-efficient smallish division designs of infantry battalions mixed with towed artillery support companies or towed artillery battalions, your divisions can perform surprisingly well even in ultra-low supply conditions against an all infantry force. Transport planes for paradropping supplies aren't strictly needed most of the time in such cases, especially if you prioritize grabbing victory point cities and on grabbing factory icons that appear on the map when you zoom in enough. Division design and division design evolution is situational, especially for minor powers. Strictly following some timeline of division design that is supposedly great for all countries is like overly adhering to a Combat Width that is supposedly great for all countries. There will be exceptions, especially for lower to middle level minor powers like the Guangxi Clique. You might be able to create a Guangxi Clique playthrough guide, and explain why you are making particular division design changes as your industrial capacity and your technology improves. Also, the research path and the early construction path I described above for the Guangxi Clique are not necessarily the best. It might be better for example to make your very first construction a Military Factory, rather than constructing some Infrastructure or a Civilian Factory. It might be better for example to make Infantry Weapons 1 technology one of your initial two research projects. Hearts of Iron 4 has always had tough decisions on whether to take a shorter term or longer term approach, for example the decision of faster research speed now versus faster research speed later, or the decision of better weapons technology now versus better weapons technology later.

[@MachiavellianStrategist]

@@wendydelisse9778 yes, I like the idea! I think Brazil will be the next minor I cover! Maybe it will be worth having a highly specialized marines army, and make use of the marines special doctrines. But I will need to test it accurately, since I never played Brazil before. I will also wait for the dlc to release.

[@DanGarcia-xd7qv]

Mach, I am very interested in ADVANCED supply tactics if you could find time. One thing I have noticed when you invade another continent is------------> you build the port up, then start expanding the railways as you watch supply come in. As you move down, even if you create a level 10 port and all 5 railways, the game tends to switch supply to another port. Very confusing. I have tried using the naval editor to block zones to FORCE the supply from my main hub to that port, but gave up after realizing that if I blocked zones, my warships were stuck. Any suggestions?

[@MachiavellianStrategist]

I will try to make a guide about it at some point! Naval supplies in general are very poorly managed in my opinion... What you are doing is correct in theory, but it still causes issues. What I usually do is: - always upgrade infrastructures, railways, hubs and ports. - when you plan an offensive, make sure to always aim for a supply hub (connected to yours) and stop right after taking it. To make sure that your divisions are supplied and enemies are not. - block useless sea regions and try to force supplies to go through a safe path (protected by your navy). Blocking the right sea regions and still being able to use your navy is very difficult at times. I personally prioritize supplies management over naval warfare.

[@DanGarcia-xd7qv]

Thank You! I thought I was losing it. Trying to do the best you can and supply, is just terrible. Now, can we get a video on what is the best case scenario to supply and trying to get that supply to a certain port? The Devs are not brilliant. That does not make them less than/ but leaves them at the very least, vulnerable. WE ALL MUST REMEBER, this is a game! Still, if they can do no better, they need to tell us. This is probably never made to be a simulation of WW II. In totally honesty, how could you pick the Axis on your side, as by everything, you are SUPPOSED to lose, especially in a multi player game! Doesn't mean you lost, and good for you if you did not. But from the get go..........if you are playing historical, you are SUPPOSED to lose.@@MachiavellianStrategist

[@MachiavellianStrategist]

@@DanGarcia-xd7qv I love this game so I don't want to complain too much. Although, sometimes, I get the feeling that rather than adding new features (like the international market and MIOs) it could be a good idea to rework some of the features which are already in the game, but are not fully optimized. Supplies are one of them (navies too, at least in my experience). I have an upcoming video about invading the USA as Germany (from Canada). I could use that to make a video about managing supplies in the area, and directing them to the ports you want!

[@TheMelnTeam]

266/15 is more than 500/30. Smaller width do not have "much worse" base stats. As long as you are using support companies, they have better base stats outright. Bigger width can only win via coordination (concentrating a smaller amount of damage onto smaller defense value to achieve crits). They also win on cost efficiency for the same reason they have lower base stats (fewer support companies). This distinction is important to make: combats happen within width constraints. It remains an extremely common misconception on forum posts as well. Using larger width is especially questionable with superior firepower, since integrated support makes those support companies even better and dispersed support is a false choice. Even generally, if you're making large widths, it's not for higher base stats. Can't be. There are multiple legit reasons to go 30+, but you can and will have lower stats/width as a tradeoff. Big divisions are also more supply-efficient than small divisions, especially if you have logistics.

[@MachiavellianStrategist]

I agree with the point you are making. The question is, is it better to have 2 15w divisions or 1 30w one? I don't think there just one definitive answer to this question, it really depends on the situation and on the playstyle. I personally find smaller width divisions great for defensive purposes, while I have had more success with larger divisions on the offensive, especially when I am not micromanaging. (naturally when I said that they have better base stats I didn't mean stat per width, I meant overall stats of the final division)

[@TheMelnTeam]

@@MachiavellianStrategist There just isn't a definitive answer between 2 15w and 1 30w unless you isolate specific scenarios. There are necessarily tradeoffs. 15w has more total stats, but is more prone to taking coordinated damage. It also costs a bit more, draws a bit more supply, and uses more of a general's slots relative to 30w. You are also 100% correct that big widths are less punished by battleplanning offensively (which leaves single units isolated/doesn't use full width in many cases). I think any analysis of using units (both offensively and defensively) *must* consider stats/width, because every land combat is width constrained. You can use 10-12 width infantry divisions to pour 5000 soft attacks into a province in '42 or so pretty easily...earlier than that with a farmed general. Even with all considerations factored (coordination, less breakthrough per div etc), this just wins so much faster than inf/line arty setups that it actually takes *less* damage too. But only when micromanaged directly or with careful use of spearheads! Another thing I slept on for a long time is reinforce rate. If you're not using mass assault, signals help battleplanning immensely. However, they also give you a micro trick against opponents without them! By initiating combat from one direction, then adding directions after, you make the width bigger while having a reinforce rate advantage. If the enemy fills width, cancel the extra attacks and start them again. *On average*, you will spend substantial amounts of time simply deploying more width than target can...usually 5-10 hours on average. This makes it possible to reinforce meme with less base damage than is otherwise possible, and helps mass assault right counter attack immensely. There's quite a lot of depth to the HOI 4 combat system, probably Pdox's best. I wish the other issues with the game weren't so bad.

[@MachiavellianStrategist]

@@TheMelnTeam thank you so much for the very detailed comment and precious advices!

[@FloppyHardrive1989]

very helpful

[@MachiavellianStrategist]

@@FloppyHardrive1989 thanks! I'm very glad to hear that!

[@teobody860]

I really like to hear that is "hi guys,and welcome back to the channel" P.s are you japanese?

[@MachiavellianStrategist]

I'm Italian! But I live in Japan!

[@unacceptableviews1505]

Another great guide. Just a comment for the algorithm....

[@MachiavellianStrategist]

That always helps a lot, thank you very much!

[@nexuqk]

very helpfull information,thanks. did this chart work with mods like the popular Millenium Dawn or Keissereich?

[@MachiavellianStrategist]

Thank you! I'm not super expert about those mods so I cannot give you an exact answer. I believe these templates are solid, and those mods should not directly affect combat widths. However, if they buff the AI to build better divisions and armored divisions, you might need to adjust the templates in order to adapt (aiming for higher hard attack and piercing for example).

[@nexuqk]

@@MachiavellianStrategist yea because when ur in game year 2028 the combat vehicles and weapons ar so advanced that sometimes u must exceed even 40 width just to keep up with the ai and thats why i asked but thanks anyways 🤗

[@MachiavellianStrategist]

@@nexuqk oh I see! I'll have to try those mods at some point for sure!

[@JDothan]

5:31 yeah, but would the 38 win against 3 15W ones?

[@MachiavellianStrategist]

That would be a difficult comparison to make, because 3 15W divisions are significantly more expensive than 1 38W one (especially once you consider support companies). The 38W division would also have an advantage in terms of coordination and concentration of firepower, meaning it would likely outperform the smaller divisions on the offensive. Of course 3 15W divisions would have an advantage in low supplies areas, in which you can spread them around to reduce supply use. But then again we would get into the "situational" aspect of this all. The main point being, instead, that both 38W and 15W divisions are absolutely viable in most scenarios.

[@TheObeyWeegee]

Heads up for the spreadsheet you're using: I tested out seven 10w's vs five 15w's on a plains tile and while I did get the correct -4% for the 10w's due to stacking penalty, instead of the -0.51% penalty for the 15w's I got a -7.10% for exceeding combat width. No idea why that is but it is what's happening, with 0 other modifiers affecting the battles. tl;dr the spreadsheet's not perfect it seems.

[@MachiavellianStrategist]

Hi! Thank you for letting me know, it might be that there are some minor mistakes, or maybe the testing was done differently. Since I did not make it myself I cannot give you an exact answer, but I I'll try to run some tests and see what happens!

[@TheObeyWeegee]

@@MachiavellianStrategist It's actually pretty simple. The overstacking penalty is when you get more than 5/8/11/14/etc... units in a battle. The base maximum for units in a battle is 5+3 for each extra attack direction. You get a flat 2% penalty for each unit that goes above the maximum. Combat width penalty on the other hand is 1.0* (total_width - battle_width) / battle_width. For example the five 15w divisions go over the maximum of a plain's maximum by 5 (15*5 = 75 vs. 70) and so when you do the math you get the 7.10% penalty. I'm not sure how the dude did his math in the reddit thread and I don't think I will 'cus it's months old now but yeah you can do separate maths yourself. But to summarize it in this post: the best division for defense is a 10w, and the best for offense is also a 10w followed by the 15w. This is because despite having better offense stats the 15w has waaay much less organization meaning they go out quicker. On the other hand the 10w's better organization costs you alot more in manpower and equipment 'cus the battle goes for longer and also you have lesser soft attack and breakthrough. You might win, but yeah you'll cost and at that point you're better off with tanks or air or something, if you can afford it.

[@MachiavellianStrategist]

I think I might have found the reason you are getting different results, although I cannot say that I understand it 100%. This is what the author of the original post wrote about his "improved" code: The code and the math behind it: So what were the errors I noticed in u/lillelur program? Firstly, according to the games defines, units will stop reinforcing, if the combat width penalty would exceed 33%, however in the code they already stop at 30%, this is probably because the dev's recently changed this value and not u/lillelur 's fault. More importantly though, the program failed to account for the extra combat power you get, when more units reinforce. Lets look at an example: Assume you had 3 20width divisions, with 100 soft attack and breakthrough/defence each, fighting from only one direction on a mountain tile, i.e. 50 combat width. All 3 would reinforce, exceeding the combat width by 10, receiving a penalty of 10/50, i.e. 20%. Each division would then have 80 attack and 80 defence, for a total of 240. Now compare this to having 6 10width divisions, which then would have 50 attack and 50 defence each. In this case 5 of them would perfectly fill the 50 combat width, resulting in 5*50 = 250 attack/defence. The first case only performs 4% worse, instead of the expected 20% from exceeding combat width!!! However u/lillelur 's program only takes into account the 20% penalty, so it overestimates how bad it is to have a slightly higher combat width. Notice how 4% is exactly 20% squared, if you do the math, you can actually prove that the real effective combat width penalty is always equal to the penalty shown in game squared. In the end I modified the program to use the correct values.@@TheObeyWeegee

[@dinmus1789]

Hey ! What's the point of having large width tank divisions (35 w for example) if the smaller division has less terrain penalties. Some will say the larger division has more HP, attack, etc. But a battle involves multiple divisions, not just one. Which is better, a battle where there are four tank divisions 20w or two tank divisions 40w? The sum of the characteristics of those four 20w divisions will be the same as the sum of the characteristics of those two 40w divisions ( ignore support companies in both cases), but the smaller divisions will have less terrain penalties if the battle is 70w wide for example. So what is the advantage of the larger division?

[@MachiavellianStrategist]

Hi! It is difficult to give you a short answer so I will just highlight a couple of points. - overall you are right, smaller divisions now perform very well and are absolutely viable in most scenarios. - larger divisions have better base stats, meaning the get larger bonuses from everything which is based on that (like planning, doctrines, advisors), when you get +15% attack, the impact is much bigger on a 35w division than it is on a 20w one. The difference in stats between a 35w division and a 20w one is quite massive. - tank divisions need a good balance between offensive stats and organization, which is much more easily and efficiently achieved on larger divisions. - terrain penalties and combat width should not be overestimated, the difference between 20w and 35w is fairly small. - 35w is optimized for terrains in which you are supposed to fight with tanks (plains & deserts), 20w is more optimal in urban and forests, but those terrains are already quite bad for tanks. - for tanks, in my opinion you might want to have less more powerful divisions, which you can micromanage more effectively and that will definitely push when you need them to. - also, we must keep in mind the extra combat power you get, when more units reinforce. Lets look at an example: Assume you had 3 20width divisions, with 100 softattack and breakthrough/defence each, fighting from only one direction on a mountain tile, i.e. 50 combat width. All 3 would reinforce, exceeding the combat width by 10, receiving a penalty of 10/50, i.e. 20%. Each division would then have 80 attack and 80 defence, for a total of 240. Now compare this to having 6 10width divisions, which then would have 50 attack and 50 defence each. In this case 5 of them would perfectly fill the 50 combat width, resulting in 5*50 = 250 attack/defence. The first case only performs 4% worse, instead of the expected 20% from exceeding combat width.

[@dinmus1789]

​@@MachiavellianStrategist Thank you for such a quick and succinct reply ❤ - "larger divisions have better base stats, meaning the get larger bonuses from everything which is based on that (like planning, doctrines, advisors), when you get +15% attack, the impact is much bigger on a 35w division than it is on a 20w one. The difference in stats between a 35w division and a 20w one is quite massive" Let's say there's a battle 80w. In the first case there are four tank divisions 20w and an attack 300, health 200, etc. Total attack 1200. Bonuses for planning, general, support from the air make the total + 80%. We have 1200 attack + 80% bonuses. In the second case, there are two tank divisions 40w and attack 600, health 400, etc. Total attack 1200. The bonuses are the same + 80%. That is 1200 + 80%. So what's the difference? - "tank divisions need a good balance between offensive stats and organization, which is much more easily and efficiently achieved on larger divisions." A large division is simply N small divisions. So the characteristics of a large division are N characteristics of a small division. You can get a large attack with a large division 50w. Or two divisions 25w. There are multiple divisions in a battle, not just one, so what difference does it make if a large attack (e.g. 1000 attack) can also be achieved with two 36w divisions with 500 attack or four 18w divisions with 250 attack?

[@MachiavellianStrategist]

In theory you are correct about those 2 points. However, in practice, 1 larger division (say 36w) tends to perform better offensively than 2 smaller ones (say 18w). This might be related to the way focusing works (both from the AI and from our own divisions). I must be honest, I have not thoroughly tested this in game, but division's targeting plays an important role in how a push is won, and multiple smaller divisions are more likely to focus different targets offensively, reducing the overall effectiveness of their stats (so even if the total numbers would be equal, their effectiveness is reduced on smaller divisions). This even considering that both had the same exact buffs and ignoring the support companies (although this last 2 assumptions should not always be given for granted). - Another strong argument is the cost-effectiveness of support companies, which get more value per cost on larger divisions. - Also, larger divisions mean you can get more value out of a very good general, since you'll be able to fit an overall larger amount of units under his command. That's more or less all I can think about at the moment, but I am sure there might be more elements to consider. Overall, my suggestion would be to do some testing in game and see which ones better fit your playstyle, knowing that both choices are absolutely viable at the moment!

[@scuffedryangosling4264]

I haven't seen a video on combat widths in a while.

[@MachiavellianStrategist]

That's probably not a bad thing!

[@scuffedryangosling4264]

@@MachiavellianStrategist it keeps the autistic argumentation to a minimum.

[@maximum_musics]

I love your videos broooo

[@MachiavellianStrategist]

Thanks man!!

[@tomasdariuspaun7586]

what about for mechanized?

[@MachiavellianStrategist]

@@tomasdariuspaun7586 hi! I do not usually make mechanized only divisions (I just replace motorized with mechanized in my armored divisions). For a mechanized only template I would follow the best widths for infantry, so the same ones I showed for my infantry divisions and for my motorized divisions!

[@tomasdariuspaun7586]

@@MachiavellianStrategist thanks

[@MachiavellianStrategist]

@@tomasdariuspaun7586 you are welcome!

[@CARNA6E]

You can't just say to someone with paranoia "don't be paranoid" and expect them to change. In the same vain, you can't just say to a minmaxer "don't obsess over combat width" and expect them to stop asserting mental dominance by calling your slightly suboptimal but still very reasonable templates garbage... I'm saying this as a minmaxer myself (it's either a starter template or a 15/35, fight me)

[@MachiavellianStrategist]

Hehehe i see your point! My message is more like to the non minmaxers, or to newer players! The idea is: - First of all, don't worry too much, your templates are going to work perfectly fine! - Secondly, make sure you are getting your priorities right, there are more impactful things than combat widths in this game! Of course, more expert players likely already got those aspects figured out, and there is nothing wrong with optimizing combat widths too at that point! (although I wouldn't ruin other people's fun by telling them that their templates are garbage haha)

[@lautaromonsalvo8808]

plenty of reasons to use any widths that are not 15 or 35. I think I always use 36 on generalistic attack units. there's no 1 or 3 width company that I want, it's always tanks/tds/some kind of org stick and those are all 2 width. I could slap something like a spg but I did the math on that and the resulting company, even multiplying it's stats by 36/35, has worse stats than the pure tank one times it's penalty. and that's ignoring the fact that having low amounts of spg is a pain to build and results in much higher attrition losses. Then for defensive units, 15 is kinda really bad in some scenarios. If I want to make a template with AA and eng, the cost of those companies when factored against the cost of the template is far far higher than the terrain penalty I could get on them. For example, a 25 width with eng and aa receives a 2% higher penalty than a 15 width, but it's aa and eng are 20% of the cost of the unit, while for the 15 width those companies are 29%. This 9% difference is just "wasted" ic in this comparison because aa and eng scale with your division width for the most part. So in this scenario going bigger would get me a 7% better efficiency under this model. If I don't want eng or aa, I usually build 14 or 15 widths. It depends on if I want a line arty or not. The small penalty 14s have over 15s is worth a lot less than achieving my desired ratio of line arty in there. In most scenarios the penalties are so small that reasons like "small divs have more org" or "big divs coordinate attacks better" should be much more important. The optimal widths are mostly a tie breaker after that, ie, don't build 32 width infantry if 30 is obviously better and pretty much the same thing

[@CARNA6E]

​​@@lautaromonsalvo8808 yeah 36 and 18 are good too

[@ThatPianoNoob]

I almost forgot to like the video.

[@MachiavellianStrategist]

Hehehe every like matters!

[@tacul9333]

Do fortresses affect combat width?

[@MachiavellianStrategist]

No, forts only add a flat penalty to attacking divisions (15% per fort level, although this is affected by the directions of attack).

[@xModerax]

What im reading is 8 inf does not sound too bad

[@MachiavellianStrategist]

Hi! It is not bad by any means, although, if you can afford the 9th battalion, that's slightly better in terms of width.

[@gregorioantonini1748]

are you italian ?

[@MachiavellianStrategist]

I am indeed!

[@jarvee9407]

So basicly you dont need to care about combat width much.

[@MachiavellianStrategist]

Exactly! In single player, as long as you avoid the really bad ones, you will be fine! You can try to optimize them of course, but I would not prioritize that over other aspects of the game!

[@jarvee9407]

@@MachiavellianStrategist yeah, thats exactly what I thought and what happened in my games. In single player just dont attack into bad terrain, right? Like whats the point of attacking a river crossing in forest or into mountain, might as well go and push in plains which will go nicely and will be pushable even with infantry and wrong combat width. Is the video ment to be for single player or multiplayer, because like in signle player I can push anywhere with 25width infantry or 27 motorized and no air. So I wonder... It seems to matter a bit when ai attacks you tho, but thats pretty much it. Right now I worry more about day and night and tactics as these seem to increase soft attack by like 2-3 times easy, instead of width.

[@MachiavellianStrategist]

@@jarvee9407 the widths I shared are ideal both for single player and for multiplayer (in which they are considered "meta"). The overall concept, that combat widths are overrated and that other aspects of the game are more relevant (such as the ones you mentioned for example), also applies to both single player and multiplayer. However, in multiplayer it is more important to fully optimize every aspect of the game, including combat widths!

[@hanzelvalondo5952]

Is 21 width still meta?

[@MachiavellianStrategist]

Hi! 21 is still a valid width, but it is no longer the most optimized. 14, 15 and 18 offer better efficiency.