Does the Space Marine template still work well against the AI? (2024)

Vampiresoap said:

Hi guys, I haven't played HOI4 for quite a long time, so I'm not sure how much has changed. Is it still op to add one little heavy tank into a regular infantry division?

Click to expand...

Yes. The AI is better at adding AT to their divisions but Cav, MTN, Garrisions or understrength divisions will not be able to pierce them. Also many countries, notably Japanese puppets, do not field a template with AT and Germany's favorite 9/3 still does not (though it does have AA now), so they should get the armour bonus against roughly half the divisions they face. As USA, and also some minor countries I will use medium tanks instead of heavies and it works nearly as well.

noobermenschen said:

Yes. The AI is better at adding AT to their divisions but Cav, MTN, Garrisions or understrength divisions will not be able to pierce them. Also many countries, notably Japanese puppets, do not field a template with AT and Germany's favorite 9/3 still does not (though it does have AA now), so they should get the armour bonus against roughly half the divisions they face. As USA, and also some minor countries I will use medium tanks instead of heavies and it works nearly as well.

Click to expand...

Ah thanks so much!! I was playing as Poland and I was wondering what template I should use to go against Germany. I failed the first try because I was only adding Heavy AA to inf templates, as it was the cheapest.

For me this is something like 8 Mountaineers, 8 Marines, 1 Heavy Tank (-Destroyer), 2 Line Artillery.

You have good softattack because of the 2 Line Arty, you have Armor and heavy attack trough your tank battalion, and for Org, HP you have your 16 Battalions, which are split in Mountaineers and Marines, so you fight well in Mountains but also over Rivers.

Using that many special forces is now quite harder after the introduced cap, but it is still possible to field 24 Divsions of this type.

witizer said:

What template structure do you consider "Space marines"? Thanks

Click to expand...

Ah it's just an old term that's been floating around the forums since its birth. Basically you just cram one heavy tank battalion into a regular infantry division, and voila! You now have armor and hard attack for super low cost.

To be more specific: The hard attack isn't low cost, having two modern Line AT would be much cheaper. Also you don't want the armor per se. What people are after is the Combat Modifier of not-beeing-pierced, for your Infatry Divsions en-masse, instead only for your dedicated armor divisions. This is because the combat modifier is a simple on/off switch, you just need to be over the piercing value, doesn't matter how much more you are over it. This works against AI, since they don't keep up in AT research and production, to counter you rather low armor value of 1 Heavy Tank in Infantry Division.
In multiplayer this is easily countered, if you are prepared. But because it was so strong against AI and noobish players at the launch of the game (where pretty much everyone was a noob), it was banned, and for many mp sever this ban was never lifted.

Like discussed in this thread, this tactic still works well against AI.

@witizer

I pretty much always run Marines, regardless of the nation unless its some super small nation. If I can supply just heavy tanks, it's worth it in SP.

Ive noticed a huge difference of fighting ability.

it is always effective against everyone if you do it right. Against AI infantry you only need armor about 31. But you can get armor 51 by rush 1941 heavy tank destroyers, then use xp to max +5 armor. Add just 1 Heavy TD to a 40 width infantry, you have armor 51! Add to your tank divisions too to get 70+ armor! This is effective even against German tanks in Expert AI mode.

Prebuild 1934 heavy tanks to convert to 1941 Heavy TD later.

It was never cost-efficient, even against the AI.

If you don't want to make full bore tank divisions, put 3 tanks into a 40w infantry division to bolster its breakthrough stat without losing its status as "infantry" for general bonuses.

Alternatively, you can just achieve 10:1 kill ratios with 10/0 infantry and a support artillery. Against majors like Germany or USA you'll need to post up in defensive terrain to do so w/o air cover though. Urban and mountain are obviously good, but marsh with its -40% attack is no joke either.

TheMeInTeam said:

It was never cost-efficient, even against the AI.

Click to expand...

That's a pretty broad brush stroke, especially in single player. When you production of equipment is keeping up with your manpower growth it can be useful to harden up some infantry divisions so they can stay in attack more successfully, defend longer with fewer losses and gain experience more quickly. Especially low manpower nations with a lot of industry - No way would I field a Swedish Army without medium or heavy tanks supporting my artillery divisions.

Here is my chance to show off a screenie I took tonight of my Dollar Store Space Marines. Adding medium tanks to a 40 width Infantry division may not be the absolute most efficient use if factories and steel, but I believe this saves manpower, and I like keeping the USA at Extensive Conscription:

As @Voigt pointed out, it doesn't have to be invincible, just good enough.

TheMeInTeam said:

It was never cost-efficient, even against the AI.

Click to expand...

The initial space marine templates consist of three things:
- Using Marines instead of Infantry
- Using a tons of artillery making 40w divisions
- Adding one (heavy) tank destroyer

Especially against the AI in the early versions of the game, the division was highly effective, since artillery was way stronger than today and the AI did not utilize them. It was also possible to use special troops as regular infantry which gives extra Org, which helps quite a bit. Also, it was very early with 40w divisions, while the AI uses much smaller divisions. Furthermore, since the AI did not use much AT, any type of armor inside the division was highly effective. And this division did not have any problems against enemy tanks and also did not build a very large air force. While not the most cost-effective division, it was pretty close. It would be a bit more effective to use heavy SPAA, which was cheaper and good enough or light tank destroyer.
I would say that adding heavy SPAA is still viable even in MP, since it is not that much more expensive than regular AA, which you might want anyway. But you get more air attack and some other smaller Boni which can useful.

Alspego said:

The initial space marine templates consist of three things:
- Using Marines instead of Infantry
- Using a tons of artillery making 40w divisions
- Adding one (heavy) tank destroyer

It would be a bit more effective to use heavy SPAA, which was cheaper and good enough or light tank destroyer.
I would say that adding heavy SPAA is still viable even in MP, since it is not that much more expensive than regular AA, which you might want anyway. But you get more air attack and some other smaller Boni which can useful.

Click to expand...

SPAA is not a good choice in this case. The lone tank battalion is supposed to provide armor for the whole division. That is its role. But HSPA only has half the armor of HTD.

noobermenschen said:

Adding medium tanks to a 40 width Infantry division may not be the absolute most efficient use if factories and steel, but I believe this saves manpower, and I like keeping the USA at Extensive Conscription:

Click to expand...

You can do the US civil war, attack the Allies, then solo D-Day with nothing but 10-0 and still have millions of manpower at extensive conscription. I doubt the tanks are doing as much as alternative options.

In SP nations like Sweden have no trouble getting as much manpower as they need. In MP, it's another animal but you can also expect consistent counters.

Alspego said:

Especially against the AI in the early versions of the game, the division was highly effective, since artillery was way stronger than today and the AI did not utilize them.

Click to expand...

14/4 is still a reasonably meta setup. I'm objecting to the inefficient IC usage of spreading tanks this way. It's nice if you can't be pierced, but you often will be...and even when you're not 1 HT destroyer or something isn't going to push your breakthrough so you'll still take more casualties than an offensive stack with more breakthrough.

Vampiresoap said:

SPAA is not a good choice in this case. The lone tank battalion is supposed to provide armor for the whole division. That is its role. But HSPA only has half the armor of HTD.

Click to expand...

Yeah you'd need to make a lot of investment in army XP just to try to prevent pure infantry equipment upgrades from having sufficient piercing if you're only using one SPAA.

Vampiresoap said:

SPAA is not a good choice in this case. The lone tank battalion is supposed to provide armor for the whole division. That is its role. But HSPA only has half the armor of HTD.

Click to expand...

In the early versions of the game, the AI was very relucted in using AT or AA (and many people did not use them in their divisions). Therefore, HSPAA provided enough armor so that weak divisions can not pierce the units. Since HSPAA cost just 200 IC compared to 600 IC for HTD, HSPAA is a very cheap way to introduce enough armor to be not pierced by pure INF+ART. Only with 1942 technology, INF divisions get enough piercing against 1934 HSPAA.

Even if the opponent is able to pierce your division with HSPAA, the value of this division is not that bad. Regular line AA cost 120 IC, which is cheaper, but HSPAA provide some additional hardness, not much, around 4 % for 40w divisions and has the potential (with XP upgrade) to provide more air attack compared to regular AA. Also, if you plan to use heavy tanks anyway e.g. because of access to a high amount of chromium as Turkey, South Afrika or Sowjet, you might save research slots for AA.

TheMeInTeam said:

You can do the US civil war, attack the Allies, then solo D-Day with nothing but 10-0 and still have millions of manpower at extensive conscription. I doubt the tanks are doing as much as alternative options.

In SP nations like Sweden have no trouble getting as much manpower as they need. In MP, it's another animal but you can also expect consistent counters.

Click to expand...

I believe you, but I also believe that requires an air game several steps up from what I'm willing (or perhaps able) to manage.

noobermenschen said:

I believe you, but I also believe that requires an air game several steps up from what I'm willing (or perhaps able) to manage.

Click to expand...

I didn't use any air units, just dropped on defensive terrain and sat there.

Most non-democracies can puppet for manpower and have several viable options for that at the start.