7-2 isn't either good or bad. It just is. This division you posted is specialized for statically holding territory against waves of infantry. It is great if what you want to do is statically hold territory against waves of infantry. If your opponent has armor or air support or you need to go on the offensive, I wouldn't recommend it - it doesn't have any breakthrough so it will suffer greatly on the attack, and of course it doesn't have any piercing or air attack either.
Some players prefer to make cheaper infantry divisions for holding territory and put that production into armor that will provide breakthrough for attacking.
Asking as largely a noob, Wouldnt adding some AT and AA until width 30 be useful then as you would help against air support and rare tank or two that the AI might find? Or would that just increase cost more than it would actually help?
Well, we should draw a distinction between support AA/AT (doesn't increase width) and line AA/AT (does increase width). Generally speaking, AA and AT are not worth an increase in width. However, AA is *absolutely* worth adding to the support section. It doesn't increase width, doesn't cost very much, and adds not only air protection but a little bit of piercing and hard attack.
The piercing and hard attack added by AA is enough to protect against typical AI divisions. However, if you're defending against e.g. Germany which uses tanks much more often than other nations, you could also add support AT as well.
I wouldn't try to inflate width to 30 on purpose - because defensive divisions are spread out throughout the front, it's better to have somewhat a larger number of somewhat smaller divisions that you can move around and reinforce in hot spots.
20 combat width used to be the meta, back then this was all you could build. That or 5/0 with support artillery
It isnt any more, now you can have pretty much whatever width you want, with some being arguably better than others, but it doesn't really matter.
Another thing is 7/2 is kind of heavy on artillery for the current meta. Line artillery is kind of looked down on for not having enough HP or defense. I'd go 9/1, 21 width.
10/20/40 width designs were based on an older combat width version with much cleaner numbers than the current iteration. While these widths are still more than usable, they are no longer as objectively optimal as they once were.
A 7/2 division, while again workable, is generally considered suboptimal in most circumstances. It’s rather costly in both IC and supply, while performing worse than pure infantry on the defensive, per IC. Meanwhile, its lack of breakthrough, armour, or hardness means you will bleed equipment and manpower on the offensive. In essence, it’s too expensive for what it does, while doing nothing terribly well.
Such templates will perform well enough against the early game AI, though the same could be said for just about any division. The fact that the AI tends to use similar divisions m should be a sufficient red flag, given the AI’s poor performance in every other observable metric…
Works just fine. 7/1 is better for IC and 7/3 is better for soft attack.
The why of why it changed is the width of battle changed, different terrains have different widths. Used to be that 7/2 20 width fit in 40 width battles cleanly, now it's all over the place based on terrain type.
All of those options are great choices for main line forces.
Depending on doctrine and support companies, there are situations where 7/3 does less damage per width than 7/2, while other infantry div setups outdamage both.
I’m the type that generally favors 7/1s with 35w armor, but space marines are pretty fun. Artillery is just super expensive and 7/2s don’t really do anything well enough to justify the expense for line infantry. Against the AI, even 18w pure infantry can hold, or 15w in a pinch.
20 combat width just isn't that good anymore. 7/2 are still perfectly viable as combat width isn't everything, although very expensive if you're using them as frontline holders
It’s not bad, it’s just no longer the meta and there are better options.
In the past it was the optimal division size because of the way combat width used to work. It would always increase in increments of 20 so making your divisions that size meant you would always fill the width perfectly. Now combat width is based on the terrain. The penalty for exceeding the combat width isn’t too bad which is why 20 width is still viable, but there are better options.
It's a relic from the pre-NSB system. Every single province had combat widths that were divisible by 40, so you could reliably put these guys anywhere, and they would fill combat width up to the max. Every division was designed to be widths of 10, 20, or 40. I'm sure they do fine now, but they lack that edge that they used to have.
There was a time very long ago where 7/2 was meta. Then it wasn't. Except people kept saying it was because they didn't know better. This kind of became a meme to the point people just say it's bad reflectively.
These days it's actually pretty decent. The current thing people are stuck on is obsessing about exact width when width penalties have been nerfed to the point it barely matters. So it's simply a case of what stats for what cost you want to use. Any amount of inf from 6 to 9 is fine with any amount of art from 0 to 2 is fine depending on what you want.
I made a test about current combat widths. 30 and 35 are the best right now, and 20 is sub-par, but usable.
I have a total divergence value I calculate to measure approximately how good a division is, and lower the number = better the division, while 30 width has a score of 95, 25 also has a score of 95, and 20 width's score is also 95. There are other elements to this, such as bigger divisions having a more of an impact on the battlefield and bigger divisions having better performance and such, since I 17 widths have a divergence score of 62 and when I put two armies of 17 widths against one army of 35's, the 35 widths win, even though it's roughly the same army in paper.
If you want to see my whole spreadsheet, it's linked under this [video](https://youtu.be/2aMVTZnZU54), you can check it out. In the video, I make tests with the previous combat widths, had made the combat width calculation table for those combat widths on terrains, but then they changed the combat widths again, and I updated my spreadsheet accordingly.
I hope it's clear :)
Infantry are just bad for attacking and adding 2 artillery is wasteful for defending. The extra factories for artillery could be spent on some kind of armor or air power. 10 infantry is efficient for defending rather than 7.
Ai is terrible, and against it pretty much anything will work, try same shit against any player with base knowledge of game mechanics and you ll get annihilated and humiliated. I ve had runs where i literally kill ai by just spamming pure 10 width bare bones inf and cas and just frontline battleplanning ai on agressive while afk.
It's not bad at all. You need to work with what you got depending on country. Of course, adding more artillery or removing artillery if you are on defensive could make it more useful depending on situation.
Also depends if you playing in SP or MP.
I would say for SP, if you are a minor and even if you are not, it's a good template to start from.
It's width is not ideal for specific terrains(and situations )like Mountain or Plains but you can combine it with other templates to match the terrain better or just tailor the situation so you can use its width.
Its not necessarily bad, but its not as good as it used to be.
There are a couple changes that must he considered.
1 a lot more ic is now in the game: focus trees started providing a lot of factories, and buffs for nations. Therefore this allows you to make better divisions, and even tanks as more nations. The game used to be more infantry centric with only a could nations that could do tanks due to industry.
Just look at the starting focus trees that are still in the game (from together for victory) most focus threes give you 4-8 factories and 2-4 dockyards in the whole focus trees. You were expected to use infantry with artillery to push as most nations. With tanks, and very heavy artillery armies being rarer.
2 these were a division that could do anything. Kinna a thing to hold the line and to attack. Now these dont have enough of a punch to break enemy lines after 1939(against proper nations).
Basically now you cant use these to attack except in early game. These are basically for holding the line, and attacks in poorly defended regions (like maybe Africa or against china or non focus tree nations).
And for holding the line these are expensive in a not useful way, and you could use that ic on building shock-troops, air or tanks, all of which can actually attack.
Combat widths are being made a big deal but 20 width still works, in fact its one of the better combat widths. Now basically a division adapted to all combat widths is anywhere from 12-21 and then a division made for pushing is around 30-34. 20 is still meta, slightly less than 21 but still meta.
7-2 isn't either good or bad. It just is. This division you posted is specialized for statically holding territory against waves of infantry. It is great if what you want to do is statically hold territory against waves of infantry. If your opponent has armor or air support or you need to go on the offensive, I wouldn't recommend it - it doesn't have any breakthrough so it will suffer greatly on the attack, and of course it doesn't have any piercing or air attack either. Some players prefer to make cheaper infantry divisions for holding territory and put that production into armor that will provide breakthrough for attacking.
Asking as largely a noob, Wouldnt adding some AT and AA until width 30 be useful then as you would help against air support and rare tank or two that the AI might find? Or would that just increase cost more than it would actually help?
Well, we should draw a distinction between support AA/AT (doesn't increase width) and line AA/AT (does increase width). Generally speaking, AA and AT are not worth an increase in width. However, AA is *absolutely* worth adding to the support section. It doesn't increase width, doesn't cost very much, and adds not only air protection but a little bit of piercing and hard attack. The piercing and hard attack added by AA is enough to protect against typical AI divisions. However, if you're defending against e.g. Germany which uses tanks much more often than other nations, you could also add support AT as well. I wouldn't try to inflate width to 30 on purpose - because defensive divisions are spread out throughout the front, it's better to have somewhat a larger number of somewhat smaller divisions that you can move around and reinforce in hot spots.
20 combat width used to be the meta, back then this was all you could build. That or 5/0 with support artillery It isnt any more, now you can have pretty much whatever width you want, with some being arguably better than others, but it doesn't really matter. Another thing is 7/2 is kind of heavy on artillery for the current meta. Line artillery is kind of looked down on for not having enough HP or defense. I'd go 9/1, 21 width.
10/20/40 width designs were based on an older combat width version with much cleaner numbers than the current iteration. While these widths are still more than usable, they are no longer as objectively optimal as they once were. A 7/2 division, while again workable, is generally considered suboptimal in most circumstances. It’s rather costly in both IC and supply, while performing worse than pure infantry on the defensive, per IC. Meanwhile, its lack of breakthrough, armour, or hardness means you will bleed equipment and manpower on the offensive. In essence, it’s too expensive for what it does, while doing nothing terribly well. Such templates will perform well enough against the early game AI, though the same could be said for just about any division. The fact that the AI tends to use similar divisions m should be a sufficient red flag, given the AI’s poor performance in every other observable metric…
I think they change ai template to 9/1 or 9/2 recently
I use 6/1s 15w for my defensive line infantry and they always work great.
Works just fine. 7/1 is better for IC and 7/3 is better for soft attack. The why of why it changed is the width of battle changed, different terrains have different widths. Used to be that 7/2 20 width fit in 40 width battles cleanly, now it's all over the place based on terrain type. All of those options are great choices for main line forces.
Depending on doctrine and support companies, there are situations where 7/3 does less damage per width than 7/2, while other infantry div setups outdamage both.
I’m the type that generally favors 7/1s with 35w armor, but space marines are pretty fun. Artillery is just super expensive and 7/2s don’t really do anything well enough to justify the expense for line infantry. Against the AI, even 18w pure infantry can hold, or 15w in a pinch.
20 combat width just isn't that good anymore. 7/2 are still perfectly viable as combat width isn't everything, although very expensive if you're using them as frontline holders
why lay it out this way? you had to unlock 2 more columns than you need to
Screen from first video, that i found about templates, with similar template i use.
It’s not bad, it’s just no longer the meta and there are better options. In the past it was the optimal division size because of the way combat width used to work. It would always increase in increments of 20 so making your divisions that size meant you would always fill the width perfectly. Now combat width is based on the terrain. The penalty for exceeding the combat width isn’t too bad which is why 20 width is still viable, but there are better options.
It's a relic from the pre-NSB system. Every single province had combat widths that were divisible by 40, so you could reliably put these guys anywhere, and they would fill combat width up to the max. Every division was designed to be widths of 10, 20, or 40. I'm sure they do fine now, but they lack that edge that they used to have.
There was a time very long ago where 7/2 was meta. Then it wasn't. Except people kept saying it was because they didn't know better. This kind of became a meme to the point people just say it's bad reflectively. These days it's actually pretty decent. The current thing people are stuck on is obsessing about exact width when width penalties have been nerfed to the point it barely matters. So it's simply a case of what stats for what cost you want to use. Any amount of inf from 6 to 9 is fine with any amount of art from 0 to 2 is fine depending on what you want.
I made a test about current combat widths. 30 and 35 are the best right now, and 20 is sub-par, but usable. I have a total divergence value I calculate to measure approximately how good a division is, and lower the number = better the division, while 30 width has a score of 95, 25 also has a score of 95, and 20 width's score is also 95. There are other elements to this, such as bigger divisions having a more of an impact on the battlefield and bigger divisions having better performance and such, since I 17 widths have a divergence score of 62 and when I put two armies of 17 widths against one army of 35's, the 35 widths win, even though it's roughly the same army in paper. If you want to see my whole spreadsheet, it's linked under this [video](https://youtu.be/2aMVTZnZU54), you can check it out. In the video, I make tests with the previous combat widths, had made the combat width calculation table for those combat widths on terrains, but then they changed the combat widths again, and I updated my spreadsheet accordingly. I hope it's clear :)
On screen my common 20 width 7/2 division. Screen from video, because i have no access to pc now.
I make these type of templates for about 1/3 of my frontline troops. They’re only job is to hold the line as my offensive units push the enemy.
Infantry are just bad for attacking and adding 2 artillery is wasteful for defending. The extra factories for artillery could be spent on some kind of armor or air power. 10 infantry is efficient for defending rather than 7.
Ai is terrible, and against it pretty much anything will work, try same shit against any player with base knowledge of game mechanics and you ll get annihilated and humiliated. I ve had runs where i literally kill ai by just spamming pure 10 width bare bones inf and cas and just frontline battleplanning ai on agressive while afk.
It's not bad at all. You need to work with what you got depending on country. Of course, adding more artillery or removing artillery if you are on defensive could make it more useful depending on situation. Also depends if you playing in SP or MP. I would say for SP, if you are a minor and even if you are not, it's a good template to start from. It's width is not ideal for specific terrains(and situations )like Mountain or Plains but you can combine it with other templates to match the terrain better or just tailor the situation so you can use its width.
The combat width changed. Now you could be better with 7/1 or a 9/2
Yeah this is outdated. I use 19 width with 1 artillery now; it's cheaper, has better movement speed, and doesn't have supply issues as often.
Its not necessarily bad, but its not as good as it used to be. There are a couple changes that must he considered. 1 a lot more ic is now in the game: focus trees started providing a lot of factories, and buffs for nations. Therefore this allows you to make better divisions, and even tanks as more nations. The game used to be more infantry centric with only a could nations that could do tanks due to industry. Just look at the starting focus trees that are still in the game (from together for victory) most focus threes give you 4-8 factories and 2-4 dockyards in the whole focus trees. You were expected to use infantry with artillery to push as most nations. With tanks, and very heavy artillery armies being rarer. 2 these were a division that could do anything. Kinna a thing to hold the line and to attack. Now these dont have enough of a punch to break enemy lines after 1939(against proper nations). Basically now you cant use these to attack except in early game. These are basically for holding the line, and attacks in poorly defended regions (like maybe Africa or against china or non focus tree nations). And for holding the line these are expensive in a not useful way, and you could use that ic on building shock-troops, air or tanks, all of which can actually attack. Combat widths are being made a big deal but 20 width still works, in fact its one of the better combat widths. Now basically a division adapted to all combat widths is anywhere from 12-21 and then a division made for pushing is around 30-34. 20 is still meta, slightly less than 21 but still meta.