[2023] Conflicting Information Regarding Raw and Weighted Optimal Combat Width With AAT

Maybe I should do a more detailed video on this. I figured everyone kind of already knew what they were doing.

One of the weird things about some of the more optimum widths is that they are odd numbers (15 and 35 in particular). This means that in order to get that width, some combinations are no longer valid because now certain kinds of battalions are in different categories.

Take this division as an example:



So, this division template is slowly transitioning to MECH. Pretty typical.

But...

It's 34 width. How can I get 35 width? Add a motorized AA? I can't, because that's a mobile combat support battalion and won't fit in a column with the MOT or MECH. I could replace the TDs, but I'm using howitzer tanks so I need the TDs for piercing. I could put in SPART, but that's an armored combat support battalion. It would have to go into the column with the TDs. Fair enough, but I'd have to remove a regular tank or MOT battalion. And SPART are kind of bad.

So, by having some of the more optimum widths being odd numbers, you have to make some odd choices or just accept slightly sub optimum width.  

Gefallener_Held said: I am not familiar with your YouTube channel. Please provide a link. 17 seems to be a good number that closely divides to most if the terrain widths, but that is rawz nit weighted against combat bonuses.

I've personally been running 16 with infantry divisions, but 36 with panzer formations. But I have toyed with going down to 10w for infantry which also brings them into line with the PARA I've been using.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC6ZbxtAR7kUXMrZJCNNFHrw