Combination Divisions (Hearts of Iron 4)

Mordok
Penalties on the type of low movement speed of a division in which heavy / super heavy tanks (plus a lack of resources in poorly supplied territory / enemy territory) or loss of personnel if the division consists of> 80% of soldiers? Low efficiency of infantry divisions in the mountains. is it?

bob21
No, I mean military efficiency: for example, with the same stats, "tanks + infantry" will work better in attack than "tanks + antiaircraft", say.
The question of speed, supply and efficiency on the ground in the game is well disclosed, but I did not find a single mention of the relationship between the branches of the troops.

Yes, the question is interesting. Which division setup is optimal? For example, 2 infantry regiments, a regiment of tanks, art and pt?

Well, there are a couple of parameters that depend on the composition of the division. First, there are bonuses and penalties from the terrain. Marines and Engineers, for example, have bonuses for crossing rivers. Secondly, this is the share of the infantry. It affects how much of the anti-personnel and anti-tank damage the division receives. Anti-tank artillery, for example, has a large anti-tank attack, so it will be most effective when fighting a division with a low proportion of infantry. Third, there are bonuses from the support mouth. Medical orderlies can save part of the division's personnel after a battle, repairmen can reduce equipment losses, etc. It is difficult to say something about the optimal composition of the divisions. This is influenced by many factors. Including the country you are playing for. For countries with a small amount of Living Force, such as Germany and Great Britain,

Medical companies are good not only because they send people back to the reserve, but also because the division loses less experience (by 30% I already have) when replenishing with recruits.

I answer my own question:
There is a ratio of soldiers / equipment in the template. The stronger the warp in the soldier, the less damage in defense from armor and the higher from infantry. And vice versa.
In short, all other things being equal, an infantry corps will better stand up to armor.

The composition of the enemy division is also important. If the enemy has an infantry division, then the AT in your division will be a "ballast", and vice versa if the enemy has a lot of tanks.

NineHeart
PTO will not be ballast because soft attack | hard attack 4.0 | 15.0
And infantry has soft | hard 3.0 | 0.5
The speed of both the infantry and the PTO is the same.
The only argument not to pack divisions with anti-tank equipment alone is low defense.
Ballast, IMHO, an infantry regiment in a motorized rifle division.

PS If we ignore the price, of course. I take as a basis an industrially developed empire, which needs the most efficient divisions, regardless of the cost of production.