How do I use ammo trucks?
 

I bought two ammo trucks for my campaign force... but how do I actually use them ? :confused:

Re: How do I use ammo trucks?
 

I'll bet most here will say they are best used for artillery far to the rear,and i would agree.
Some artillery units have low ammo loads and fire more than one round per turn and will run out soon.
So having an ammo truck close by to artillery parks is essential ,I always save some support points in order to buy as much as i can.
But,if your not as much into "large" battles and/or artillery,kept far back as possible in cover, but not too far they can be very useful as well,replenishing hardfighting undamaged armor.
Not as useful for infantry as usually when they run low they are too shot-up to be effective, better to save their hides for the next battle.:hurt:
If you are asking how they actually work as in resupply,
just move adjacent to or in the same hex.
If neither unit is too suppressed or performs any action for a turn resupply should occur sometimes partial it may take more than one turn.

Re: How do I use ammo trucks?
 

Game Guide->Frequently Asked Questions->"How do I reload ammo"

Cheers
Andy

Re: How do I use ammo trucks?
 

Thanks guys.

Re: How do I use ammo trucks?
 

Come on guys, wise up. Speaking in gamewise terms only, not that there's anything wrong with wanting to play with only a core force, or wanting to replicate something of a historic force in core, just why would you buy non-combatant units in your core? Any unit without a weapon, buying it in core, deprives that unit of practically any useful gain that time would bring a unit in core, plus it's points that would be much better spent on something else that would benefit from being in core.

Buying a truck section, through support, for your 88's, is far better than buying those same units in your core. The suppport trucks are exactly the same as a new truck was should you had bought it in core.

Now somebody correct me if I'm wrong about this, but the only useful role that a truck might have might work the opposite way, where you might prefer that the truck type unit be cowardly, in other words, that it might even drop it's load even if it's not being fired upon (though ammo trucks have no load capacity) should suppression go up or that it retreat in such circumstances. What's more, if I'm not mistaken, I think trucks are very poor, if they will manage it at all, of dropping a unit when under fire. Part of that is because the load isn't riding on it's back like on an AFV, but also because trucks often don't survive long enough under fire to get unloaded. Same goes for HT's, though HT's actually benefit from being in core because they have weapons.

Yes, I'm sure I had probably bought trucks in core once upon a time, but I wised up afterwards. If there is ANY benefit to having trucks in core, especially ammo trucks, which don't even have a unit loaded, at least winSPWW2 allows you to add to your core later, so you can then add combatant units in core to make up for the truck inclusions. If trucks of any sort would unload their cargo (or resupply) faster due to increased experience/morale because they were in core, well then there's some point, but I doubt very heavily that is so, and even if it is, it's probably negligible compared to the support trucks.

Here's one last little tidbit to nibble on. Let's take your 88 platoon with trucks for example. One of your trucks gets heavily suppressed (unladen) and you want to rally it. Unfortunately your 88's are also heavily suppressed. Naturally, you should rally the 88's to some extent, first. Now each unit, should the unit leader fail to rally it at some point, will turn to the platoon leader for a rally. Once that platoon leader fails to rally a unit there is no more rallying that turn (forget company commander for a moment, as he's too far away) from the platoon leader. Wouldn't your trucks -and- your 88's benefit more from being in seperate sections? More leaders (two sections instead of one platoon) means 100% more rallies. The only benefit having those trucks in a core 88 truck platoon that I can see is if the leader is a member of one of the 88's, therefore rendering the trucks a slightly greater rally ability over time than a support truck section leader would, BUT, it's real difficult to have 100% improvement, which having an extra leader through another section would bring. I understand, in many cases, not wanting a bunch of sections all over the place to carry out that advantage isn't very desireable, but I am talking only in the case of a useless unit, the truck, that there is actually cases that you are better off having them in support instead.

So to answer the original question, of how to use ammo trucks, my direct answer is to not buy them in core for a start.

Happy hunting.

Re: How do I use ammo trucks?
 

Well, there is merit in what you said Charles. I'm not a big fan of having trucks to begin with. Too easy to kill.

Since the question involves ammo trucks, it's different. If you are using only your core and no support points, the quick answer is you have them in your core so you can have them at all. If, on the other hand, you are using support points, there are advantages to having an experience ammo truck verses something running the national average.

The ammo truck has to be in good order to resupply. If it's running away, it does no good and a more experienced ammo truck will hang longer.

Another one is simply to make sure you always have ammo resupply. There are battles where you just don't get many support points to use. Spending 10% of your support points on ammo trucks, when you would rather spend them on something specifically useful for that battle makes the choice somewhat difficult. You've got a Defend battle and 500 support points, what do you do? Spend 50 on ammo trucks? Buy 25 obstacle points? Get a couple of additional AAA units? By ammo trucks being in your core, it removes them from this equation. Overall, it still boils down to preference.

As far as just trucks, there are different reasons, some less tangible than others. I've had forces start with trucks in my core because I needed transport and couldn't afford tracks out of the gate. As soon as practical, I upgrade to tracks. Until I get to that point, I prefer to have the trucks integrated with the unit in question. It makes overall organization easier knowing squads B0, B1, B2 and B3 go with trucks (and eventually tracks) B4, B5, B6 and B7.

The example about 88s is very case specific since they (the 88s) draw a lot of fire and need moved frequently. In those cases, it helps to keep the transports in good order, but when used as infantry transports, once they have dropped them off they just have to scoot for cover. If they happen to get suppressed while loaded, rallying the truck rallies the carried unit. Once they are empty, I don't worry that much about rallying them except to try to keep the alive.

Overall, I don't like to use trucks, core or not. Sometimes, they are just a necessary evil.

Re: How do I use ammo trucks?
 

RERomine: I knew there were a few holes to my argument, the "get a unit cheap to upgrade to what you really want later (HT's)" was certainly one of them.

Precisely, or, perhaps better yet, choose so as to make the last 25pts. to an ammo truck, so that you don't get stuck with two if you only want one. If I think I need any resupply, ammo trucks are the first thing I pick, so as not to forget them. Should I forget them it's back to a reload to start all over again.

As far as ammo trucks go, whether core or not, consider the following, which is simplfying the problem here. Let's say an SS infantry platoon and ammo truck cost the same (SS infantry is actuaslly cheaper at the start):

9/39 - SS core infantry 75exp (let's ignore morale for the time being)
ammo truck support - 64exp support

10/39 - SS core infantry 80exp
ammo truck support - 64exp

5/40 - SS inf 83exp
ammo truck supp - 64exp

The other way around, your ammo truck, which cannot fight gains from 64 to maybe 75exp, but not that it matters, since it cannot but be used as a target, "while" your support SS inf stays with the mere 75exp throughout. As the war grows longer, should neither unit suffer damage in the core spot, the difference becomes more profound, as having an SS unit with over 100exp is constantly being replaced (or some other equal costing unit) SS units which are 'decreasing' in value, such that your '45 SS inf might be 65exp, while your core one would had been in the 100's. I don't think having a 100exp ammo truck helps, really. I don't think they unload any quicker, because I don't think the code was written to cover such obscure things as how quickly they unload tied to exp/morale. I know for a fact it doesn't make a difference with ordinary trucks, though, as I said, the trucks ability to cower, if there is one, would make really poor morale or experience possibly preferable to what is generally accepted as being good. Do my SS inf to truck comparison over a larger scale, say comparing an entire platoon or two of the very same units and the fighting quality of your overall force be3comes profoundly weaker. Of course, if one is in the habit of losing half our core, or half of the entire army, I can certainly understand how seeing the support forces as inferior would have pretty much a hollow ring (not that such a thing would describe anyone).

I just don't see any way around it, as trucks (with the exception of buying a cheap unit to upgrade later) and ammo trucka are a waste in core. You spoke of wasting 10% of support on ammo trucks, but it's not like your core gets off scott free having them there. Oh sure, it's a lesser percent of a larger total in core, but the points put to your overall army (core and support) is precisely the same, and some of them benefit from being in the core and some of them do not, so why not put the do-nots in support? Perhaps if your core is stronger, like with no trucks (though I carry 4 HT's, which are combatants) then the support you pick won't be so crucial? In a meeting engagement, for example, I almost feel guilty picking over 300pts. though 500 is available. Why is that? Partially because I'm not wasting points on non-combatants and have a more satisfying force. Frankly if it weren't for possibly wanting air support in that situation, which I cannot get in core, I would only be picking support just to have some units, that don't cause me total bleeding. IOW, it feels good to have some units whose loss only means a popint loss, rather than also exp/morale losses that fixing or replacing a core unti can involve.

As assualting or being assulted, goes, however, that's often different as you have more reason to need support, but IMO the support totals are then so overwhelming that it's just making it far too easy for myself to select all that support. So as I do things, you can see that having the habit of selecting trucks, ammo trucks, 1 inf platoon, perhaps some air support, and maybe a tank section have little to do with worrying about those trucks being spent there when the totals are so immense to start with. Nonetheless, my main point is not to say that somehow our support is all the more greater for one method or the other, largely because as I see it, the support force is pretty much just a pool I use to soak up some fire and also to provide what is either non-essential, unavailable, or makes no sense in core.

I can see wanting to have perhaps an 8 unit platoon, four of which are trucks, just to sort of keep them together, but then that's part of the problem isn't it (just ignoring trucks as a waste in core for the moment)? Get some or all the trucks destroyed after a bombardment that is merely trying to supress that infantry, and your poor infantry start suffering additional damage due to the destroyed trucks suppressing them (and since we get them in the same platoon to keep them together, why would you send them abroad only to become seperated?). Ordinary foot infantry doesn't have that problem, as they are plagued less by no trucks about them being destroyed from the same platoon (though the range of the destruction from the unit in question counts I'm sure).

So you might say, suppose I just absolutely had to have mobility for that foot platoon in the form of trucks, what would work better? Simple, a different platoon of "support" trucks. Not only is there an "additional" command to rally 4 of those 8 units, but the trucks don't have to stick around that infantry and can deliver them and get out of harm's way possibly easily. Tie them to that platoon and they will suffer suppression often enough for going to the rear and help with towing or loading some other things. You see? More versatility and no penalty for being support from other formations.

Oh, one last thing on keeping the core to it's heights of effectiveness, I'm sure there are those who tire of the advantages that having combatamt units very highly experienced may often make beating the AI even more of a cakewalk, and to such a viewpoint I have no answer, other than to play shorter campaigns.

Re: How do I use ammo trucks?
 

Charles seems to have issues with other gamers preferences on using trucks:confused:

Re: How do I use ammo trucks?
 

Having ammo trucks in your core is a matter of personal preference, I guess. Since core elements can be added (if you have repair points) and deleted whenever you want, it's not like you are stuck with what you pick at the beginning of a campaign. For me, I prefer a couple in the core so it's one less element to worry about taking out of support points. As with just regular trucks, ammo trucks can be upgraded to armored ammo carriers at a later point and some of those are armed. And while you are correct that experienced ammo trucks don't deliver resupply any faster, their experience might be the difference between being just pinned by nearby artillery and retreating or even worse, routed. Experience will also allow a better chance of rallying. Seeing my less experienced, yet cheaper ammo truck retreat three turns before I get it under control could mean units needing resupply have to wait six turns.

While I mentioned, I don't like trucks as transports because they are too easy to kill. Still experienced transports, be they trucks or tracks, will suffer less suppression to incoming fire, just like ammo trucks. They are also easier to rally as well. As an added bonus, units in them are also rallied. Higher experience of the transport also benefits the transported. Also, if the truck is less experienced, like the ammo truck example, it could go running away. You've got your 65exp truck running away with your 100exp SS infantry unit! A 100exp truck has a better chance of getting your 100exp SS infantry unit where it needs to go faster. How much faster? I don't know because I would never keep a truck in my core without upgrade long enough for it to get to 100exp. I'm just trying to point out they are not a complete waste of space.

A good argument could be made for not having transports in the core at all, whether they are trucks or half-tracks. They are nearly useless on a defend mission. I've had the AI assault with 100+ tubes of artillery. My infantry hunkers down in bunkers for protection, but unfortunately there aren't underground parking garages for the transports. I usually leave them parked on the back edge and hope the don't attract attention. If they aren't part of your core, however, you could end up spending a lot of support points on transports for other battles. My core has two SS infantry companies with 14 half-tracks each. That's over 500 support points if they weren't part of my core. For that reason, they are in my core and they do set out of harms way during defend missions.

I do understand the point you are making. You want your experienced core to be composed of units with some offensive or defensive capability. I'm just trying to point out that there are some advantages to having experienced non-combatants. If there were more limitations on changes that could be made in your core, I think it would matter more. It matters more early on before you stock pile some repair points so you can add to your core. Beyond that, I think it's just personal taste.

Re: How do I use ammo trucks?
 

It all depends on the player & has pros & cons

Cons
Yes having non combatant stuff in your core is not particulary sensible from improvement point of view.
You have to spend repair points to fix them.
Likes of trucks are a liability if defending as allows attacker a bigger force as you would not buy with support points as you are not going anywhere.
In fact as RERomine said most taxis can be a liability on defence even indeed armour, you could not buy scout vehicles as prone to dying if thats your thing.

Pros
Dont have to remember to buy them each time. I need x trucks x utility blah blah.
Means you have a genuine core unit capable of operating without support as I nearly always do in meeting engagments.
If plan on becoming mechanised sometime can now upgrade & already in a niceorder for deployment.
As a thought Division is probably getting a bit naffed off at you for keep on hogging all the transport.
Support is now just that divisional assets assigned to you so.

Every one has there own idea of what they want yours takes advantage of the game system but why not have a proper core & theme say

(Edit) sorry Gila forgot WW2 but you get the general idea just adapt from below to what you want so any extra armour would be TDs SPGs or such not tanks if look at big picture as the rest of your unit is already engaged.

If you want to take advantage of the game system I would say the things that benefit the most from experience are FOOs engineers (fast mine clearing) scouts & armour esp in WW2. Helos to in MBT if you can keep them alive as dodge SAMs better.

Russian 80s armour formation
Everybody has a ride inc HQ & is self contained formation with integral AAA arty ammo trucks.
Ammo dumps cannot be used in meetings as no time to prepare for onboard stuff & support arty air rare.

Support points are for divisional assets so AAA arty air engineers plus option of following.
Allocating extra ground forces
When available why not use troops local to area or in this case maybe have the Poles help out.
Can possibly recieve local scout or partisan milita support.
For urban get troops assigned as now you are really the support.
If need more armour no tanks available sorry in use elsewhere but can have ATGM vehicle hunter killer unit assigned.

Now you have a theme & a proper fighting force to take through the campaign.

If its a long campaign with upgrades no piecemeal upgrading you have to replace the entire company so save those repair points or your unit will not be among the first to recieve the new kit.

Re: How do I use ammo trucks?
 

To Charles22

Everybody to their own the flexibility of this game allowing for that is just one of its good points.

I used to buy my core like you maximising it, only have best equipment no trucks sacrificial lambs biggest squads so survive, even occasionaly reloading if I lost superman.
But times change & now its just a series of battles with the same guys.
Yes its gutting when you lose super FOO & his fast arty strikes but even if only half your core survives to improve for the next battle its easier than a regular one.
Besides you did have a second guy you were nurturing didn't you.

Re: How do I use ammo trucks?
 

Good daqy all

Trucks and Ammo Trucks in the Core, mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm,

IMHO, as mentioned I think it depends on what your are trying to portray. If you want to at least start in a historical TO&E for your force, you will find a lot of forces were likely to be lucky to have trucks. If the plan is to upgrade as you Campaign along, trucks are a good start so once you have made those upgrades you have a unit together, not some motor pool dudes. (Although for some US Units this maybe accurate) I've even a few times kitted my PzGen out with Sdkfz 10's or a mixture of HT’s and Trucks. I even tried a mixture of trucks and horses/mules and while historical it did slow down game play. Especially at the unit sizes I usually field.

I think as well that if you plan on having fully HT’d Infantry Units having the vehicles gain experience only makes good sense.

Ammo Trucks are a must if you have an onboard battery or two in a Campaign, especially SPA’s. Of course you can start with towed stuff with horse drawn everything and be real historical.

I think the bottom-line is this game is so awesome that one can do all these things and more.:cool:

Bob out:D

Re: How do I use ammo trucks?
 

If you want a less effective force, that's your poison. I offer a better way, or so I think. Ignore it or not. As I said earlier, I used to have trucks in core too, and just don't think it's a good idea.

Re: How do I use ammo trucks?
 

RERomine: Very good point about being able to add or delete formations from the core. At first I thought, why would you want to add them in the first place (it's not like there aren't reasons, but I'm trying to push the point that they're not worth it)? But then you mentioned deletions, and frankly I thought once you added into core, that formation couldn't been deleted, but, then again, I'm so into keeping a highly effective core at all times, that the thought of adding something that strikes me as being in the wrong place (trucks in core instead of in support), only to delete it later would still be some measure of folly. I wonder if you can in fact delete additions, as you say, and I would think with the way you have spoke so far it would be so, since you're sort of pro-trucks in core, and then on the other hand not liking trucks. I can only surmise that you are deleting trucks in defensive missions and either aren't using trucks in support at all, or only on specific types of missions.

I'm now thinking to myself, that the knowledge of the mission makes more sense if you can adjust the core at that point, but it does seem to me that core adjustment comes inbetween missions, but I may be wrong as you may already know the next mission. I will caution, however, and it seems you have some experience with this, that features aren't always what they seem. I recall how adding formations to the original core, later on, would often result in some sort of bug. Now that has been corrected as far as I can tell, but I'm not so sure about the deletions. Needless to say, I would think that deleting C Co. from a large core force would be just asking for trouble bug-wise, but that only anything you added after that first battle could be dleted without incident, such as your last formation being trucks.

The point about armored ammo carriers, I didn't know they existed, but it seems to me it's a minor point as I'm quite sure most nations don't have them. On the more general subject of trucks, I do recall the USA truck with the .50cal but since it was the lone exception I knew of about trucks with a weapon, I didn't bother, though I would think a combatant in the form of an HT in core, would be able to switch to that truck if so desired, instead of merely carrying weaponless trucks to upgrade to the .50cal one later. The more logical path would be to have the useless core truck for cheapness, then when the time was good switch to HT's, and then later to the .50cal. I should think the HT's would still be better though, but something in the back of my mind is telling me the USA doesn't have HT's with the same capabilities of the German ones.

Your point of the suppressed ammo truck is a valid one, but still not worth the core inclusion, but answer me this. While in theory you have the retreated/routed ammo truck difficult to handle, have you ever actually been in that situation? Think hard. I'm not saying it couldn't happen, I just want to know what happened when it did. For one, if the game is as I have seen it on some SP renditions, the ammo truck is very combustible and is unlikely to survive anything approachiing a concentrated bombardment, such that worrying about it's ability to rally is minor. We haven't made the point of having ammo's in a core infantry platoon, for example, but it could be done by switching trucks in such a formation. No, no, don't tell me you would do that! Anyway, should you do that, just on the suppression aspect again, do be aware that a seperate formation of ammo's, as they usually come, generate a whole another commander, therefore a much higher chance of rallying than some slight chance that traveling in core will bring them. You could have ammo's in core, something that makes me shudder, but still have them as it seems they're basically intended (and better off) as a seperate section. The only occasion where I would say that having them not seperate is better, say in a company, is that if they are within range of the company commander, that commander could help them. Having something as important as a company commander close enough to a unit that is drawing bombardment so heavy that the company CO has to rally him, certainly is asking for it, but nonetheless could be helpful, though the rally percentage difference between a core or support seperate section of ammo's is negligible given the ammo will often be needed practically anywhere on the map.

I'm not sure about the truck being able to rally the passenger. So here's the scenario. I have never been in a situation to see that. Sure, I would rally a truck if it came down to it, but with the so few times I have any trucks get into trouble, I experience one of two things. Either they are destroyed or they weren't laden in the first place to matter. If the passenger somehow gets off before it is destroyed, even if the truck isn't destroyed, then the ex-passenger is no longer capable of being rallied by the truck, if indeed it ever was. I'm not too sure you're just making something of a prediction to what happens to the passenger, rather than knowing for sure. So how do you know it's true? You can't get hold of the passenger and check it's suppression while loaded. Do you bother to not only check who the paseneger is, but then go to the roster and can check the suppression from there (assuming that would work)? Just sounds realy wild that the passenger would be rallied too since they're completely different units. Only if the truck were a commander in the same outfit as the pasenger would this be possible in the conventional sense I understand. Ugh, a truck commanding infantry - shudder.

Then there is the case I stated before, about having low morale on a truck is often a better thing. If I was lame enough to have a truck, especially against direct fire, get attacked, I sure wouldn't want the passengers to stay aboard. What's the benefit? They're in a lot more danger on the truck from the truck overturning or exploding than they often would be getting off of it (depending on current truck speed of course) also because the truck is more susceptible to be hit than the passengers are by collatural damage. Being usually a size 3 or higher, is a lot worse than being size 0-2 for infantry (usually a 1). I can't tell you how many times my size three tanks are hit by collatural damage, but it is very high. Infantry on the ground don't get hit half as much.

About the SS inf to truck comparison. You build the argument on speed, and that's what's getting you into trouble probably (not that you claim any trouble. I just see the trouble though). What's so important about speed? Granted, I have seen the scenarios generated by SPWAW for example, and they're so ridiculously few in turns that I could see the need for helter-skelter tactics as a necessity, but we are talking winSPWW2 campaigning here, something quite berift of needing much speed (too bad we still don't get points for advancing units off-board, aye?). It's not like I don't have transport of some kind. Roughly, half my infantry are laden on trucks, HT's, or AFV's for a very short time, while the other half are on foot. Not that I couldn't put more of them on transport, even with the force I always have, I just don't do it, as I find there's such a thing as too much infantry concentration, such that it makes any bombardment in the area very destructive so that's one way of seperating them. Seeing how my units are limited in playing on the largest height map, I place some of it in more of an observation mode, to which infantry do quite nicely.

The whole point, of especially a truck, is not to be under fire in the first place. If delivering with speed is so important while under fire, then HT's are often the best answer. With trucks, you have to unload earlier, therefore less speed. You might get to wherever faster, that is, if you have a nice clean paved road, and then be under fire, but we know how infrequent those sort of roads are. Generally the HT is better for a transport role, not only becuase it was weapons, but because it isn't soft, but you know that already as indeed you're just making something of an argument for somebody else in this case. A guess a smoke fanaticism would help the truckers of the SP world, aye?

About the trucks and HT's in core you mentioned, I think you're still not getting it. There's quite a lot of difference between the two, though I do use quite a lot of AFV as transport for a time. The HT isn't soft, so unless arti. hits the top they're "fairly" safe from collatural damage. Some HT's are harder to hit because of a smaller size and some aren't open-topped (though very few), though are all thin-skinned. Perhaps more importantly, they are armed. Often I find, though I carry only a platoon of them with a seperate infantry platoon, that they fight only infantry, if you manage it quite right (depending on mission and enemy) so it's giving that infantry quite a lot of power. I defintely expect them to fight each battle, but I have to find the time and place for it. I certainly don't park them somewhere and hope they don't get bombarded, as they're not all that vulnerable. Sure, you lose one now and then, and that's usually just because you got too bold and not because arti knocked them all out at once, etc. Now if I have as many HT's as you do, that would probably lead to me being more bold with them, but then I'm not so keyed up on speed transport anyway. You spoke of their uselessness on defense, but actually that's often where I find them the most useful. There's usually all sorts of nicks and crannies where they can be useful, even if they're not the best unit. There is also all sorts of places, generally, where you can place them usefully even if just to avoid bombardment and the back row isn't what I'm talking about. Inevitably, if you work at it, you can find useful fighting roles for them, but maybe that's where we're different, as I have them a seperate platoon, and after they unload their initial load, they may not be loading the rest of the battle, nor even necessarily aiding the infantry they loaded. They're a fighting force as far as I'm concerned. Needless to say, unless they get any up-armoring later on, their role in fighting becomes more reduced. They're basically limited engagement speed and firepower as far as I'm concerned.

I think you understand the concept of every combatant unit in core, is better than a combatant in support, and that trucks aren't combatants (but HT's can be) but for some reason you're banking an awful lot on where you shouldn't be banking, those minimally experienced support units. It seems that what I said about the possibility of your core being too weak is true, because you have explained at least how you have so may HT's but aren't even fighting with them at all (defensive missions). If I used HT's to such a limited degree I wouldn't even have the mere four I have in core. Off to support they would go. Bottom line is, if you fight with almost all the units of your core and leave non-combatants to support, your support won't seem so important, as you have plenty of firepower already and it would be far more experienced. Facing those T34's, Char B's? Then maybe get some ZPZI's in core or 88's (or upgrade), and then delete them later from the core when no longer necessary, if you can delete them from core as you say. Personally I would go with nothing but core, which unfortuantely would necessiate that I would need ammo trucks in core, but there's too many units totally unavailable to cores, and it does allow something of units that are sort of fodder.

Pardon me for a moment.....you said you have a minimum of 28 units (HT's) that you just park on defensive missions. I'm really amazed. I don't know the compostiton of your force, but why not get rid of at least half of those and for offensive missions load SS inf on AFV's? So here's your situation as I see it. You have 28 units that are used only half the time, which would be about a third of my force (how many units do you have and what size map?), and worse yet in core (since you're not using them for fighting very much). Don't you have to buy an awful lot of combatant units, especially for defensive missions? You almost seem to have a fear of having combatants in core, as though they are useless and inflexible as your HT's are useless in defensive missions. Surely you must be relying very heavily on mines or air units in support, right (not that I do)? There is nothing that is combatant, that is available to the core, that isn't better off there than in support. It's just a basic concept. It seems to me you're way over-emphasizing the advantages of radical mobility for the offensive, and things that aren't available to cores on the defensive, therefore a great protecting of support. Just my hunch. I certainly like to have some air support and mines can make things easy, too easy.

Perhaps you're somewhat where I was in my past, where I felt I had to use every support point for some reason. I think it was because I thought the AI would use the full support even if I did not. That's not the case. What that then means is that you are best off accounting for every little point, and putting points into units that cannot gain experience is more and more folly, though, like I said, mines are often just the opposite. Just on a sidenote, I enjoy when my first campaign mission is being assaulted, because then I can put pillboxes in core if I so desire. I don't think you can place pillboxes in core unless that first mission is like that, and cannot be added later to the core.

Sorry about being so wordy, but you struck so many cords.

Re: How do I use ammo trucks?
 

Imp: Yes, I used to go along the lines of being a "more complete core" but then I figured being more effective was what it was all about, and besides, as I stated before, if I need more transport of some kind, that's part of what the support is for. If I need more transport i don't forget them, and even if I do, how hard is it to reload back to where I can re-pick my support? I ought to realize that as soon as I'm setting up my forces.

Speed isn't as necessary if what you have has punch. Same for the defensive. It is intersting that both you, RERomine, and I draw the conclusion that I'm not as mobile, when I play a map that requires far more of it than any you guys are probably campaigning with, and I get by very nicely. Having quite a few AFV's that can carry infantry help a lot there.

Perhaps for core completists, they are often under the idea that seizing that hill in the middle of a meeting engagement is such a big thing? It's not. There really aren't too many instances of that, and even if there were, understanding we are talking about the AI here, the AI won't seize it in any kind of force anyway, and if so only with tanks pretty much. Anybody can seize that hill with tanks alone, I do it myself, though often they have passengers. Sure I suffer a bit at times for doing that, but ANY transport takes that risk in that situation and many of them come off far worse off as a result. If either side decided to bombard the hill heavily, it's better off that neither side try to stay on it.

Then again, I am presuming that people actually think about the overall battles and even the limited battles, such as only the offensive ones, and build the best fighting force they can. Apparently, as I used to, to some degree, there's a good number of people who want to outfight the AI, but then think that picking almost precisely as the AI (trucks in infantry platoons for example) will achieve that. Oh well, live with useless or near useless units gaining pointless or near pointless experience/morale then. If people spend so much time with trucks getting routed, then by all means put them in core.:doh:

Re: How do I use ammo trucks?
 

You're right about that, only if I lose a superman he's lost; no reload there. Besides, how much does it matter if half or more of your core is supermen anyway?

Re: How do I use ammo trucks?
 

Hi Charles

Okay lets clarify if you want the best super core then dont buy trucks ammo resupply in your core. I dont vs a human player.

But against the AI come on give it a break you do not need more advantages what you need is a fun challenging game.
Read my post them Germans were good I did not bother to mention I have 2 ammo trucks & 2 ammo mules in cmy core.
These have been hard battles & I am pretty good.
Be honest when is the last time in a Campaign the AI gave you a real challenge.
Do you accept the battle as it comes or change the map vision if you think it will be hard. I dont with the exeption being urban in the snow as time consuming.
Vs the AI I generaly play to fast risking losing a unit I would not in PBEM esp when mopping up

I would say we both want diffrent things from our campaign.
You I feel want an easy quick play victory as I used to.
I want a challenge & my hat is off to the team in that I have got one.
Sorry to those I am PBEM at moment but seeing if I can make the crossing fairly intact has gripped me, I am favouring a game vs the AI over a human good grief.
But things are tense & I have an uphill struggle once on the far bank. What happens if I lose my 6 engineers how do I fight the tanks then?

Re: How do I use ammo trucks?
 

Imp: No Imp, you read me wrong to a degree. I'm not for easy victories, in fact my desire to play weaker nations speaks to that, and often in wargaming I desire the defeated nation more, but, then again, Germany was a defeated nation.

Now think of all the things that would make Germany or most any nation uber-powerful. Buy plenty of 88's for example. I buy only two. If things get really bad I might add two more, but as Germany can get pretty good or outstanding tanks sooner or later, there's only a temporary need there.

Now that I have dwelt on a truly more effective core in writing it here, it does occur more clearly to me the greater advantage I have against the AI, but what else are you to do? It's obvious what the point of campaigning is. My idea is that my army is the elite force of that nation's army, or at least it will be if I do well. I personally think my force is VERY susceptible to air attack, but since that won't come till late '41 at the earliest, I can always add in more AA later. Another thing is, that part of the idea of optimizing your effectiveness, becomes that much more necessary should you be campaigning as say a weak Japan. Optimizing with Japan, or Italy becomes a lot more crucial and you don't succeed with them buy buying trucks in core; no way. Germany and the USSR can often skirt despite having such a thing.

The one thing about Germany that attracts me more to playing them more than the others, is that not only were they defeated, but they were also a nation who had lots of victories. IOW, they're not a nation that sees pretty much only one type of battle, like the USA for example.

As far as the AI giving me a challenge, realize first of all that almost every battle, even against the Poles as Germany gives me many challenges. I may have a very effective force, but I am crippled by playing fire brigade style. What is fire brigade style? Firstly, it's playing on 200X140 map with somewhere between 90-110 core units. You see the problem? The map is so tall and narrow, that every battle that has the AI attacking is much more dramatic, as I don't have enough units to cover all the holes. This leads often to my armor having to rush from one scene of non-defense, or helping a picket line somewhere. It's really a lot of fun. Overall, you might look at the end result in points and conclude I didn't have a good time, as I am almost always getting decisive victories (excepting possibly France '40 and USSR '41), but it's those little periods of weakness that even make the overall decisive victory so enjoyable. Can the flank, be reinforced by units in the middle in time, for instance? Will the middle regret sending them and be subject to a heavy attack afterall? Will the other flank help the then weak middle and get there on time? A lot of that goes on. Even just the battles before help arrives is quite invigorating, as a platoon of infantry, perhaps, tries to find the most effective way to either slow the attack, run from it, or dish out maximum damage. I have so many units that end up being on the lopsided side of things, for a time, that there's no way you can truly say that I'm not at a disadvantage and that it's a total bore. Besides, for me, losing even one core unit is something of a tragedy, though I know those losses will often come.

I will tell you one thing about this game though, that would make it more interesting. I used to play Panzer Strike way back in the old days, which was very similar to SP. It had a campaign feature where if you replaced/upgraded more than a certain percentage of your core at one time, you would not be able to fight the next battle and have to wait till the battle after that, or longer. To put that in winSPWW2 terms, that means that when that occurs your 60 battle war just went to 59 battles at most, such that it hurt your point total to not fight as many battles. Part of me plays to better what I achieved in Panzer Strike and SP, where despite the scoring system being somewhat different, and there being no delays for changing your whole core if you want to, I at least have some sense of whether my warring has improved over the years.

BTW, I will probably buy 30 mines maximum, probably 15-20 in most cases, just because I know how overwhleming they can be. The AI can mine me to hell and back, and that's one advantage he will have over me and I'm not that terribly good at sniffing them out. I almost always will buy a pillbox or two, just because they throw a different element into the game, though I find their effectiveness debateable. It's just fun to have certain units which cannot be moved and have to be defended to the last man.

The AI, when it's available to them, often WAY overspends me in both artillery and air support. I buy 'maybe' two air sections when I can, usually one. The entireity of my arti comes from one battery of offboard core 100cm's in for early Germany anyway (4 guns), 2 onboard 75IG's, and 2 150IG's. I might pick another arti battery of some light variety in support for assaults, but usually not.

Other than the experience I hope to gain later, there's nothing terribly overpowering about my force. I tone down my air, I tone down my arti and look for my most major punch being in each core unit being as effective as it can be through experience gain.

I will give you some example form my last battle of the kind of excitement can be found in parts of my battles. I had almost exactly what I described to you earlier concerning an infantry platoon picket in a meeting engagement with the top 40 hexes being completely berift of units, save for this platoon and one lousy PZ38t. The PZ38t was there as sort of a flank infantry support, and to do exactly what I did with it. What is that? He found a cranny where the 2-3 platoons of tanks were coming (a small cranny with at most 15 hexes before trees would interupt it) and started destroying them one-by-one. Now it wasn't exactly easy, and he got damaged mid-way through the battle himself, but I stuck it out with him and the sector ended up not needing help and got none. Should the tank had been destroyed, or there were another platoon of enemy tanks, I probably would had sent help. Now you may ask, why didn't you send help earlier, despite the unlikely huge success? I don't recall why exactly. Maybe the closest armor was just too far away. Maybe I was convinced the attack once past that point would home in on where the rest of my frontal forces were and come to me, so to speak. Or maybe I just had a hunch. You see what I mean? Nothing too dull about that, I was against tanks that could had just as easily destroyed that tank and swept the area. These weren't tanks with just MG's and that close range could had easily destroyed them. Oh, I'm wrong I did have some help, as I sent an airstrike up there and immobilized or destroyed one tank by that.

To me, as I so often found when playing SPWAW, the game got boring partly because I often was confined to a map height of 20,40,or 80 hexes (at the extreme most 120 hexes) against my will. There's just not too much fun when the flanks can be reached by placing AFV's, even in the early years, in the center of the map and blast away without moving. Excitement is when you have to move AFv's not just one or two turns to reach that area, but sometimes as many as eight turns. You're gritting your teeth, will they get there in time? Jolly good fun. It really gives you the feeling that you have individual armies out there, let's say about 7 or 8, and each one has it's own particular problems, whether extremely successful or not, instead of having such a blob of concentration that it feels as if the whole thing is just one or two armies.

OTOH, I don't attack in a very concentrated manner against the AI. Oh my two tank companies will have an infantry platoon with them perhaps, but that's as much concentration as I get. I'm pretty much attacking the entire AI line at one time, but with VERY varying amounts. Sure, my 2 main armored thrusts will often have great success, but when that same infantry platoon and one PZ38t hit a certain area you know they will be at their wit's end just like I described in that defensive portion of that meeting engagement I mentioned. With a 200 height map, there's all kinds of spots where your two armored thrusts aren't going to be able to reach very soon.

One last bit of my not excessively pressing an advanatge a lot of people would press...not only am I picking only two core 88's but I don't even plan on using them until France, maybe not until the USSR. They're such an expensive unit for that early, that not only do I hate to lose them, but I don't want their experience severely crippled should they engage units that don't need to be interfered with by them, and lose men. They start the battle on something of a rearward hill with transport nearby. If something breaks through, as is almost always the case, the target will have to be really worth it, and even then I will probably wheel them off after only 1-2 turns of firing, because I'm pretty sure the AI will bring the arti a calling.

When France comes, when I'm pretty sure they will do a good amount of firing, I will change where I place them, but not as you might expect, such as some front hill overlooking a big area, but the opposite, should I be on a defensive mission. I have had them on the ground, guarding a cranny, maybe 30 hexes deep if possible. The idea is for them to engage strong AFV's when not more than a couple of the AFV's will be able return fire. They're that way never overwhelmed, and while they're not the most active of my guns, in that role they are devastating more than usual, because almost no units can engage them in equal terms. It's taking your most expensive unit, which will definitely draw all kinds of fire and artillery and making it available to every unit and their dog, that gets your best units in trouble. If it were a Tiger in '40 france, I would blaze away on a hill once I was convinced the enemy had no air (and maybe even then) but as the 88 is a lot more vulnerable if have to play these games with it.

So you see, I give the AI quite a few chances, but I'm not dumb about it either. I still want to come away with a victory of some sort, and I should if I have a nation which is often favorable. Playing with Italy or Japan, I should feel lucky to get even a marginal victory. Different nations; different measures of success. If you can play with as much fun as I can with the USSR or Germany, due to a small ratio of units to map size, then even these traditional more boring nations can have a good deal of fun. Yes, there is some boredom, but that's if I forget all the nice little undermanned battles I won to get to that point, and all the delaying actions that made a difference.

Re: How do I use ammo trucks?
 

Okay appologies I miss read you taking not a defeated nation but the underdog in equipment is always a good idea vs the AI. This time I wanted to play the Germans though as have a nice variety of weapons & my core is purposely big enough to allow for the variety when they come along. It will never be a Tiger company but will probably get the odd nice vehicle like a Jagdpanther for long range overwatch as decent FC for the day. As back from main force hes also in a position to react to finding heavy armour but thats a long way off.

Just increase the size of your core slightly & suddenly you can afford those taxis.

Yes I sometimes play full height because it means you do not have enough units to cover front. Not so much vs AI as it slows down the game as 1/3rd of my force is reconing slowly knowing it may find a force that totaly ouclasses it.
Versus AI not that big a disadvantage though as it may spread its forces to.
Versus a human had a very amusing game once loads of hills & we near enough swapped ends as both forces missed each other.
A wide map gives you more tactical oportunities & if attacking AI is probably spread a bit thin.
Your refit comment on other game do not understand the logic. Yes if refited should delay next attack if set up with a few days between battles but if a month no. should not change the number of battles just would mean remaining ones are closer together.

Sorry but think about this if you are capable of attacking the entire front at once with acceptable losses just how good is your force. Especialy if like me you do not generaly have enough arty to go round. I never take what I can the river crossing I am doing being an exeption as they are very hard & I desperatly need the smoke, plus the tank problem.

I would say playing how you are is more difficult on the whole than a denser map for meetings as you will have to react to AI but I have a horrible feeling your tactics would lead to an early demise vs a human as he picked you off.

The Poles were no pushover as I found in my 3rd battle against them.

In WW2 bunkers are great as they draw fire & tend to last a while slowing the attack. In MBT as penetration improves they become virtually useless as one hit will kill it.

I would suggest if you do not already try a PBEM game & then review your tactics & if you are giving yourself a hard time.
You need to give yourself a hard time otherwise you will never improve, sticking to basic possibly flawed tactics as there is no need to learn more.
Things like being able to kill tanks regulary with unsupported infantry should be second nature, pretty damn hard in the dessert if they do not have some sort of ranged weapon & he has been sensible enough to have an infantry escort.

Re: How do I use ammo trucks?
 

Out of my 30-35 AFV's (not including the four HT's) I will likely field 8 heavies, maybe 2-3 lights, and the rest mediums (the Panther is a medium BTW).

Oh I know my leftover points can purchase taxis as you call them, but those points could had been on more combatant units in core. Having a larger core doesn't change the fact that the trucks are a waste compared to a combatant unit in core, it's just a little less of a waste because your force is larger overall.

I have spoke a lot about map height, but none about width, and temptation for a lot of people, is to do the obvious and go with the largest map period. I tried that myslef for a while, and that's why I'm not using that sort of map anymore. With the 140 width, and I'm still trying to figure if it wasn't 130 which was better, noentheless, there is a width which is ideal. I found that anythign over 140 gave so much time that the AI attacks thinned out too much. It also gives the AI less ground to cover on the defensive. Perhaps more important still, to perfect the fire brigade effect, you have to have a map narrow enough to where when a frontal flank is attacked, there's less time to react on your part. If the map were placed at a narrowest possible, it might just be that there would ne no more neutral territory to begin with, so it's easy to see what I'm saying is true. Less width means less AI "width spreading" and less notice on attacks. Naturally the AI can still "height spread" and will likely do so for higher maps, but this is somewhat compensated for when one picks only cluster objectives, as the AI is not programmed to hold the shotgun spread of objectives, though it might appear that way at times just through random placement.

Yes, I see what you mean about loss refits, but the game I was talking about had a minimum of a month between battles, so this was a way of keeping peopel from going hogwild refitting every time they had enough points to do it. Besides, while a refit in many cases might take mere days, often formations would go through a period of R&R and re-training to get up to battlefield conditions again, which of course would add to the delay. It certainly made you more careful with your losses, and also more careful in how quickly you replaced or refitted units.

I'm not sure of what point you're making about me attacking across a whole front. I was trying to make the point that I even cripple myself to a degree in attacks. I'm trying to add a little suspense. It's tryin gto bring the defensive fire brigade tactic to the offensive. Naturally it doesn't work as well on the offensive, but it still makes things more intersting, as you're not always in the advanatge that way. If you are saying that my force must be prety darn good if I'm doing that, I would agree, but it's not to say I'm attacking as favorably everywhere as where the two thrusts are. I guess you could say the much more minor attacks are more sort of a wearing down job. they're trying to wear the lesser attacked areas down through attrition. Just a lot of constant fire from a small amount of units. If they do poorly the attempt is abandoned or more than likely someting will be sent out of one of the armored thrusts to reinforce it. You see, sort of the same concept? Some weak areas has to have decisions made as to whether the stronger areas reinforce them or not, and to what degree. Huh, in SPWAW, I could figure pretty quickly with such a narrow map, just what the size of the enemy force was. So if they were attacking the northern flank, I would "abandon" the southern flank. you can't do that in a 200X140 map and get away with it. You usually have to send reniforcements from the center, and then decide if the other flank should reinforce the center. While there is a height stretching that can occur with AI forces, thereby making them with more holes too, they generally have more units than me, so it's less of a problem, but even so, with a more spread out height attack, I cannot abandon a once guarded flank and not expect enemy units there. That's part of my game BTW, to maintain frontal integrity and never lose a single hex that I orginally possessed. Not too easy all the time, but it does tend to make thinks a bit more difficult than otherwise would be. I played SPWAW the same way in regards to frontal integrity and often had no problem at all abandoning it. It's very simple when the AI piles up pretty much into one corner.

yes, this fire brigade stuff, particularly on the offensive would probaly lead to problems agaunst a human, but since I will never play humans, for my own point of view it's a moot point. you were wondering what I did to make battles not too terribly easy or boring, and that's the main thrust of my more recent comments. I am also commenting on what other aI-only players should be doing to be more effective or exciting. I havemn't offered one comment as to how any of this woud help against human opponents, as, after all, we were talking about long campaigns weren't we? Incidentally I'm sure some of the ideas work against humans too, but since you don't long campaign against humans, therefore have a core that gains experience along the way, then sure trucks in core don't make a difference, as no unit gains experience outside a campaign.

The Poles not pushovers? Ah, sometimes, but I still get decisive victories against them every time. I think the armor on the 9tpw's and 7tpw's, or whatever they're called, was downgraded a point from 3 to 2, so that helps enormously. I give the AI the heavy tank option BTW. To me the Poles are tough when I have lost more than 5 tanks, and that usually only happens if I'm chasing after detroying every unit, and if I act in more haste. I recently started a serious campaign to get one of my tanks into the hex with enemy infantry, hoping the already damaged infantry will surrender and quicken and ease the process of eliminating them. I didn't lose a single tank to that sort of action but I was pretty cautious. It will make good training for later, though generally enemy infantry is the least of my problems. It can get pretty tiring and boring to always fire with AFV's at some 19 man unit routing across the whole field. If my attack hadn't broke down before that, then it certianly doe sat that point, though cohesion isn't needed too much there, because the enemy infantry in the routed state retreats so far that they're quickly out of the reach of my infantry. Any interest in picking up infantry to chase them delays things more. Delay and they may rally back again.

Pillboxes? MBT? Nah, I don't play MBT. Pills are about the only chance Japan and Italy seem to have against the larger allies.

No, I'm not interested in PBEM. even at the expense of lousier tactics. Lousier tactics doesn't matter to one who never has to face those who allegedly could fight better. Often the tactics are the same, it's just any predictability of the human versus the AI that is in question. As the narrow height SPWAW map example I gave, I wouldn't dare abandon the opposite flank to a human, but that just goes to show one of the strengths of the winSPWW2 AI, in that I have to, in some degree, treat that opposite flank as though a human were against me. Even if you gave SPWAW a higher map, I bet the AI wouldn't defend or attack possibly both flanks with at least something, because years ago it was so extremely rare I developed the tactic of abandoning a flank to compensate a flank attack elsewhere. Anyway, the middle can probably still help a priorly abandoned flank if need be, and if there's no objecitves there, there's not a whole lot of gamewise point to doing that, but frontal purists like me would consider myself somewhat defeated for allowing that sort of thing nonetheless. Play humans, and I guess the frontal integrity, and a few other things to make things tougher, go out the window.

Of course, if human inpredictability is a strength, it is also a weakness. For example, I tailor my force selection to succeed within reason to the AI, but if a human opponent had 10 88's or 30 tigers, what do you think I will do? If the AI routinely comes to me with such forces, as they often used to, I will make adjustments. Same with my AA defense, if I'm regularly losing heavy and medium tanks to air units, guess what I'm going to do? There is no one force that can do it all.

Re: How do I use ammo trucks?
 

Well Charles you are fixed in your ways & you said yourself you do not play challenging games. "Against the Poles I always get decisive victories & consider 5 tanks a loss"

Nuff said & may you continue to have many more as thats what floats your boat.

Re: How do I use ammo trucks?
 

Charles, I've attacked a simple save file as an example of how trucks rally passengers. There are a series of German trucks on the road and the lead truck has a suppression of 6 and the passenger has a suppression of 7. You can unload the passenger and confirm this. Reload the file and rally the truck with the passenger still on board. It might take a reload or two because the experience and morale of the truck is just national average. Once you do get a successful rally, unload the passenger as well and you will see it also rallied. This method allows you to see both the before and after pictures of the situation. I'm not sure if it should work this way, but it does.

As far as ammo trucks running away, it is something that can happen, but isn't common. Since ammo trucks are unarmored, they are more likely to be destroyed or immobilized than just suppressed. I have had them run before, but the overall objective is to keep ammo trucks out of harms way whether they are core or support. Typically, I'm careful with my supply vehicles, but the AI sometimes just slings artillery randomly and gets lucky. I start with trucks, but switch to armored carriers as soon as practical. Some nations have armed and armored ammo supply vehicles available and some don't. Armed isn't as important to me since their role isn't to fight. I use two supply vehicles as battalion level support with my core.

Your theory about deleting units from my core is incorrect because you don't find out what the mission is until after you pass the repair phase. I've just tried out different units in my core to see if they worked for me and what I wanted to achieve. One example is I had added some Elefants and just found out they weren't worth it. Too expensive and I just figured I didn't need a slow moving pillbox. There are other instances where I had towed artillery with transport. I upgraded them to SPAs. As such, I didn't need the transports anymore and deleted them. Mostly, I add units to my core which is at 125 at the moment.

My core actually has 28 SdKfz 251/1 half-tracks for transport and an additional 8 recon or assault tracks. The transport tracks average 1 kill each, which isn't much but I use them to pepper a target and then run up and unload my infantry. Most of the time in those assaults, the infantry gets the kill. Trucks, even the few that are armed, aren't good for this type of attack. The tracks are with my core at all times. Most of my battles aren't defends so they are useful in delays, meeting engagements, advances and assaults. When the mission is a defend, I do park them but make a nice ad-hoc reserve if I need to use them as such. Personally, I find it a good thing if they can just stay parked the whole battle because it means I didn't need them.

On to the speed aspect, I do consider it to be important to not be in the same place for any length of time. This goes back to the artillery aspect again. The objective is to get out of the impact zone as soon as possible. Usually not a problem with trucks because if they don't blow up when the artillery comes in, they drop their load and cease to be transports. Tracks are much more survivable in this area. If I have units in any given area for more than three turns, I feel artillery is a risk. Being able to move and move quickly takes that out of the picture. Being able to move fast doesn't translate into being careless. The main purpose is to get them to from the LD to their assault position as quickly as possible so time. Sometimes, that assault position is in the enemy rear area. Why go through what you can go around? :D My entire force ends up in the enemy rear. No assets are left behind. I find it amusing to see the AI "counter-attack" and push into my deployment zone to find nothing there.

I am getting what you are saying about trucks in the core, but am just saying they aren't entirely worthless. Nearly so, but not completely. There are a couple of points in favor of it and at least six against. The point I was arguing against is that there were no benefits what so ever. As I said, I am not a fan of trucks unless it's the enemy using them. They die easily, unload at the slightest amount of incoming fire, they rarely have any offensive or defensive capability, off road mobility is limited, get stuck easily, etc. Because of these limitations, half-tracks are always the better option. I will take a track over a truck every time.

My core is two SS infantry companies, one tanks company, two heavy tank sections, a couple of SPA batteries, recon elements, two SPAA sections, three MG-42 sections and one section of ammo supply tracks. Of my core, only my two ammo supply tracks are unarmed. This force is balanced well to deal with most missions. This core runs about 8,000 points, mainly due to their experience. I've cycled different units in and out over time. The Elefants I mentioned earlier didn't meet my needs. I had StuGs at one point too, but I replaced them with Tigers. The 88mm on the Tigers is good, but I was more interested in the larger ammo supply the Tigers had. I've fought battles where I was running out of ammo and even having resupply didn't help. There wasn't time to pull units off the line for resupply. PzKw IVh tanks were hitting AI armor and half-tracks with HE rounds! Terrain prevented easy shifting of units from one section to another and visibility was low enough that units from one flank couldn't fire across the front of the other. The AI had a combination of 240+ AFVs and half-tracks, about 180 were left burning. My core is more oriented toward offensive action. It use to have six towed ATGs, but I got rid of those as well, because I found them generally useless in this role. My support points can be used to buy ATGs if the battle calls for them. I also found having any non-mobile units in my core was a waste as the AI tends to have scads of artillery with nothing better to do than pound them. Those are actually what were replaced by the Elefants. The campaign is in Italy right now and I don't encounter anything the Tigers can't deal with so the Elefants are gone also.

Because of the size of my core, I do rely heavily on defensive obstacles in defend missions. The AI usually attacks with 25,000+ points and I now have only 23 tank killing guns. Obstacles are required to give those 23 guns time to engage targets. Using obstacles isn't that great of an advantage because the AI is very adept at getting through them somewhere and often everywhere. I've faced situations where I've been out numbered 8 to 1 on tanks and time is required to thin them out before they get to me. A mobile defense doesn't make much sense, being that you would be giving up one bonus to being on the defense, the revetment for your tank. Aside from mines, I use fire trenches, wire and dragon's teeth. Other points go for bunkers and artillery. In a defend, very few support units are at the broken end of the bottle. Mostly my core is on the line. The only exception are the bunkers, which have a rifle. My infantry stays hunkered down in those for protection against incoming artillery until they have to deploy against the AI assault force. As mentioned, my tracks all stay back on this type of mission, but there is one thing to consider. Each of those parked half-tracks have a AAMG so they provide support, even when off the line. They have taken out enemy aircraft before. As for aircraft, I rarely use them, except the spotter. Battle field intelligence is more valuable than the few units that a strike unit could take out.

Trust me, my core does most of the fighting. With a core of 8,000 points and support points ranging from 500-2,000 points, I couldn't win if they didn't. My force is designed as a reasonably realistic battalion sized task force oriented to the offense. As such, the SS infantry companies have track transport. I could go without tracks, but it doesn't make sense with the model I'm using. For me, putting them riding tanks isn't an option because I don't think it is modeled well in the game. Tank riders should be more vulnerable to casualties than they really are in the game, IMO. Overall, my core has served me well. There are instances where support units go in first. My core isn't an engineer battalion. I've got a few, but not enough to effectively breach the enemy line on an assault. They make the hole and my core blasts through it. My engineers are more intended for mines encountered beyond the main line. Remaining points tend to go for artillery, air spotter if available, additional recon and to fill any gaps that need filled, if the mission is something other than an assault. My standard on delays is six MG-42s and six 50mm ATGs. At a 2 to 1 disadvantage, I typically need more tank killing guns and the 50mm works well against the Americans and British in 1943. There are some DARs I've done out there that detail how my battles have gone.

Re: How do I use ammo trucks?
 

Boy, you sure do keep getting me wrong. Now you may not consider losing 5 tanks something of a losing effort, but I was talking about the Poles afterall. Adjustment to what you expect from a battle, or didn't you understand that? Take those same 5 tank losses, that's a great victory when going against a superior foe ('41 USSR for example), but when facing a much weaker opponent, oh say Poland, 5 tank losses I often find as just plain unacceptable. The same loses against different enemies can have extremely different reactions on the player; not just me. The score may be the same in the end, but losses to inferior foes hurt more keenly, just like the Lions shouldn't be getting 500 total yards against the Steelers. It's often an indication of sloppy play to have the same losses to an inferior enemy as to a stronger enemy.

Of course there is the possibility that somehow we play beyond our normal abilities against stronger opponents, but when one sees a pattern over time, and has fought Poland so much it has made his eyes bleed, then yeah, he ought to know what are acceptable losses for his playing style and what are not. If you even think for a minute that Poland is tough, wait till you see the USSR. The USSR may rout more easily than Poland (not sure) but she sure has much better units.

Re: How do I use ammo trucks?
 

Keep in mind that the game level sets a lot of stuff. During the war, the Germans beat the Poles with superior tactics, better training and organization. The game on the other hand, balances a lot of things. If you have a more experienced force, the AI gets more points to spend. It is possible to have Polish aircraft show up that was rare during the war. The AI artillery seems to have a super natural ability to drop on units that should otherwise be hidden. The Polish guns in 1939 were very capable of defeating German tanks of the day. Losing five tanks is quite capable of happening.

Now that my core has Panthers and Tigers, like yours, I don't lose tanks as much, but I still lose them. There is nothing careless about having a 155mm round or a 500lbs bomb drop on a turret. In battle, units are destroyed. Losing a Tiger with 100 kills hurts much more than losing a mark IIb with none, but it's just something that happens. When it does, you continue the mission.

Charles
 

Here is a link to my AAR versus the Poles & ongoing battles vs the French
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=41834

It lists my core as entered France has ammo as well not listed & had no HTs for use in Poland. Do not buy transport with support.

AI recieves 130% of my forces repair is -10% (might be 120%)
If I remember correctly got a marginal victory & 2 decisive vs Poles

Note things you probably will not do.
Half my arty is short ranged stuff that I have to move to keep up with the advance as did not get the luxury of having all nice gear.
HTs coming on line slowly will not be getting more for a while
No 88s allowed till later, might get 2 with support if defending & map looks bad.
So I am trying to fight French armour with infantry because tanks dont cut the mustard.

But what did you do if the AI got your 88s?
Can you still take these out & the Matildas & KV's I still face if you lose them?

The river crossing is an exeption as have additional ground well air forces in FJs, otherwise engineers for mines but now have 2 platoons in core so dont need.
Possibly the odd bunker & ATG on defence as used for that purpose but no sacrificial lambs.
River crosssing also a rare instance where I used most of my support points as they are a hard operation to pull off.

I think the diffrence between us is our view of what represents a challenge.
You are replaying the same format you have already won at rather than trying the next level.
I actualy state the first battles were not much of a problem but I am now working hard to achieve victory which in my book is a good thing.

Re: How do I use ammo trucks?
 

RERomine: I was going to respond to you paragraph by paragraph, with some minor comments, but my blasted post got deleted somehow. At least up to paragraph 6 it's apparent we are understanding what we are trying to say much more clearly. I'll start a 7 therefore with this post.

P7: in the deleted post, I mentioned that most people, I think, don't know the subtle differences between HT's, AC's (armored cars) and light tanks. In Gerry's case, they usally don't find that at least one of the early GE AC's has better hitting ability than the HT, because it has a range finder and fire control that the Ht doesn't have, even if they have the same guns. Even if the HT couldn't load units, it's still not a bad fighting choice in comparison simply because it's so cheap. The AC is better for when you have to hit right away. I mention this because of your Tiger considerations of ammo loads; anothe rthing which can be easily overlooked. In my case the PZIVB is mt AP punch workhorse, but since it has only 20 rounds and isn't the most accurate thing, the PZIIIb/d I think it is, solves both problems quite well, as it has both a high AP ammo rate and more accuracy. Getting nothing but Nashorns in the later game may look awfully pretty (and risky), but that ammo is gone very quick.

(still P7) Amazing 240 Ht's! I have played this game for so long when you were limited to like 300 units, that this is truly unbeleivable. I have seen some hordes when compared to the force I had. I think some games used to allow 5X your defending force in assaults and I bumped into that situation a few times. even with my usual 90-110 core units, smaller than your own core, I was in awe. On the subject of artillery, however, even with my less mobilr force, especially on attack misisons I usually don't have that much problems with them, partly due to the AI times of bombarding me where I'm not (not necessarily because I moved). the way I look at it, I have played the same AI opponent enough, that I can usually teel when the arti is coming after the intital strikes. I just have a feel for it. I don't nother moving anything for the sake of 75mm arti, but 100mm or better gets me more interested in moving. Attacks are almost constantly moving anyway, and what is not moving, should it get attacked at that time, is very foten in cover anyway, so they really have to open up with the big ones to shift me as far as infnatry are concerned. Now, another thing. Do you reserve any core arti for counter-battery fire? I do so with those early GE 100mm 214 hex ranged ones. They can counter virtually any off-map bombardments but until they get very experienced I think their response is often undependable. I also counter onboard arti, of course, by my own onboard, or possibly by those 100mm's. I do a much better job at this than the AI. Part of it, I think, ahs to do with the AI thinking he can hit my infantry he's spotted, so they soak up a lot of what would otherwise could be counter-battery to my onboard arti. His 75mm onboard, or indeed mortars, against so many of my infantry is fairly useless, since so many prove relatively invulnerable when in good cover. My only real worry comes from AFV's getting suppressed by a lot of collatural hits or of course for the much larger guns against most anything. My first Polish battle saw me lose only 3 AFV's and only 65 men, so it couldn't get much better than that for losses; even to a weaker nation.

P8. 23 tank killing guns? What would these be, all AFV's? Because you seemed to make the point before that ATG's weren't your bag anymore. About aerial recon. i'm not too keen against it, and it is new for mesomewhat so I am at least still playing around with it, but so far no matter how much I've improved with them they are still getting shot down each and every time. And this isn't the AA-happy '45 units I'm going against either. I primarily like to pick aerial attack units in the form of fighter bombers. Not only are they pretty insusceptible to being shot down when used wisely (unlike the Storch) but they have multiple passes, each pass producing a more reduced form of recon, and with weapons that not only can be armor-piercing, but fire om those multiple passes (though AP ammo is more limited). It's not exactly a key element, but you have to remember that one top hit, probably the most likely hit for fighter bombers, often means a heavily damaged AFV. I get real tired of enemy air raking my AFS's. BTW, for those who don't know it, I guarantee the AI does far better then the human in attacking ground units through the air. I don't think they are as keen though on taking paths unlikely to have enemy AA assets. So I pick an air asset a good deal of the time, hoping they can nail a T34 or two for each battle over the course of the early invasion (even a T34 immobilization is largely a victory). It's also something for diversion's sake. It seems really stupid to see the AI rake my AFV's badly at times, and then for me not to even consider trying to match that.

(still P8) I would like you to consider an adjustment to your defensive HT's. I've alrady made more suggestions more radical to your viewpoint on what to do with them (not have them :shock:), but here's something more mild to digest. How's about compromising my strategy with my HT's, and yours? IOW, Ht's often are attacking in limited circumstances, defensive battle or not. You mentioned their AA assets. Ho wmuch use are those asests at the ned of the map. Maybe they knock out a plane starting from your rear. I don't know why the AI would start precisely where his places a lot of his AA assets, but I digress. Why not still have them still to the rear somewhat, but not the rear of the map? IOW, I think the AA is better used when to the rear of some of your fighting units. Place them 10-20 hexes behind your AFV's or something similar on defensive missions, I bet the planes you shoot down will go up significantly. As battlefiled intelligence goes partly due to my Storch inadequacies, I often play some of the map blind, so that adds a little more to my excitement. Most of my intelligence, somewhat spotty though it may be, comes largely by more dependable ground units. Foot scouts on an AFV perhaps. Walk to the lead trees and spot while they can, then go back to the AFv, the enemy usually being none the wiser and the scouts not being interfered with; mostly due to good timing. Naturally holding some key areas, by any unit, eliminates the need for much recon there. Again, we're not talking about defending against looney human players here, who would probably just do things that were impractical or even impossible to do, such as squeezing a ton of units into one hex, so the enemy might mistake it as a platoon or smaller. Yeah, you might need more severe recon against human players, but who would want to play somebody who did gamey stuff like that?

(last paragraph) I have the notion that you do not really know just how vulnerable AFV riders are. I use them because I use them wisely. The definition of wise being that they are not fired upon in that situation. I can't say it doesn't happen entirely, and I hate the losses should it come, but as I don't know how realistic the losses are, I'm pretty sure, one who doesn't use them knows far less still. What more reason do I have to say that even I do not know? Because the latest patch changed that supposedly; they're more vulnerable now. So if I were you, thinking as you do, I doubt I would change mid-stream ousting a lot of HT's (I thought you were beginning a new campaign with the latest patch, as I did - just a hunch) to start a serious AFV effort to carry my SS, but do know it is not as it once was. OTOH, though I have done quite a few AFV infantry riders sinc ethe latest pacth, not one of them has been fried upon while there, so I cannot tell you the losses. The only thing that came close was I had a sniper on an AFV and he disappeared from bombardment raining nearby a full throttled march. Being a one man unit, that doesn't help matters any, as most riders I have seen on the old versions lost at least a man

Hmmm, now you're saying you're into some ATG use again. Didn't you say they were useless as far as you're concerned? Must had been that offensive mindset describing their uselessness, while what's left of a defensive mindset decided to grab them for support on defensive missions, right?

BTW, what do you think of Brandenburgers? I'm talking the full squad ones, not the recon? They're a nice novelty for me and are my infantry elites and have a platoon of them. They're sort of my Steiner outfit and I like their having two LMG's. I go for the satchel charges over the sniper rifle though.

I only have one platoon of SS myself. They're not too impressive to start with, as most of them don't come with the MG34 LMG.

Re: How do I use ammo trucks?
 

You misunderstood on one aspect. When I said 240+ that was a combination of tanks, armored cars and half-tracks and not just 240+ half-tracks. The mission was a delay. It was a high visibility desert battle. Unfortunately, the conditions generated dust. I really could only see lead units and a massive cloud of dust behind them. This allowed them to get closer than I would have liked. I destroyed units I could see up front, but in the cloud of dust, there were lots of other units. To make things worse the AI forces, British in this case, were using half-tracks. It was bad for two reason. The first is they were able to keep up with the advancing tanks. Usually, tanks will out run advancing trucks allowing me to dispatch the force is phases. There are riders on the tanks, but the AI almost always seems to do that. The other problem was half-tracks are armored, meaning I had to use AP rounds to destroy them. Terrain was such that there was a lot of rough ground and soft sand, making lateral shifting of me units a timely process. Infantry at this point, mid 1942 I believe, didn't have much in the way of infantry AT weapons. All the heavy work had to be done by 17 PzKw IVf2 tanks, 6 StuG IIIf assault guns, 6 50mm ATGs and 6 75mm ATGs. The ammo situation got so bad I was engaging targets with direct fire from my 6 SPAs and 6 recon tracks mounting 37mm guns. At the end of the battle, my center and right flank elements only had HE left with the exception of one 75mm ATG. I was starting to pull tanks off the line to head for resupply in the center and right, hoping my infantry would by me time. Units on the now quiet left flank were shifting, but I figured it would take 5 turns for them to get there. Then, for some reason, the AI just quit. I did an AAR on the this battle.

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=41277

The thing about the number of units you can have, the limit a player can pick is 300. An additional 200 are slotted for support use in situations such as beach landings to account for landing craft that are automatically added. All told, you can have 500 maximum. Since the AI force is completely under its control, it can go up to 500 units.

The 23 tank killing guns would be my AFVs. There are 17 Panthers and 6 Tigers. I've actually got 7 tracks with 37mm guns also and one with a 75mm howitzer, but those aren't intended to slug it out with tanks. The can handle the odd armored car just fine however. I use to have ATGs, tank destroyers and assault guns, but got rid of them. My 6 StuGs were upgraded to Tiger Is, while my 6 75mm ATGs went to Elefants and then they were deleted. With their experience, the Elefants were over 200pts each. In a defend mission, the AI attacks with a 5:2 ratio of points, so my Elefants and their six 88mm guns gave the AI an additional 3,000 points to use to purchase units. Six guns just weren't worth it. If I had to destroy KV-1s maybe, but they weren't needed to kill Shermans.

The funny thing about that last defend battle where all my tracks were on the back row, visibility was 20. I didn't expect the AI to have aircraft. My rational was if they didn't have aircraft, artillery would be very heavy and I wanted to keep the tracks away from it. Artillery usually doesn't hit the back row. It was heavy, but a dozen aircraft made it rougher. Smoke from burning trees, vehicles and artillery strikes made visibility very difficult. I had to hit the "clear" button just to find my own units in that mess, but the aircraft still found targets. Only once did it attack one of their own. What you suggested about keeping them about 10-20 hexes behind the AFVs wouldn't have been practical in this case. That would have put them behind some very large hills and in the middle of the woods. There are instances where the suggestion would have merit, however. This position wasn't ideal for defending, but it was what I had to do and I've seen worse.

One thing I was wrong about in my core is I have eight SPAA units, four sections and not two. When my force is on the move, one section goes with each SS infantry company and the remaining two sections stay with the armor. In that battle, defend I mentioned above, two sections were deployed on each flank and roughly 15 hexes behind the main line. Their purpose was to intercept any fast moving enemy units that got through on the flanks as aircraft weren't expected. I would have had them more centered if I had anticipated aircraft.

My scouts ride, but I have dedicated transport for that purpose. I have 6 scouts and 6 recon tracks. The recon tracks run the forward, unload them and stay close for support. I usually delay any advances I make about three or four turns to allow the scouts to get out and check the route out before the rest of the core gets there. They typically have spotted the AI line before the column gets there. Spotter aircraft help in this aspect, if they are available. Scouts on the ground are better, but take more time and there are places they can't get to as easily. Sometimes I use them as fighting scouts. They have panzerfausts now and are deadly to AI tanks who move in confined terrain without infantry support. The best option is using both ground scouts and a spotter plane. From a realism perspective, I only take one spotter plane if I can get one at all. One other thing I've done with scouts is air dropped them behind enemy lines. The transport pops in from the back edge quickly and drops them before AI AAA units can respond. Once the scouts are out, I don't really care what happens to the transport since I won't see it again. I do try to keep if from getting shot down, but I don't have any heartburn if it happens. It's a very handy tactic on assault missions, if air transports are available.

I might revisit the tank rider idea. It just seemed to me that a squad draped all over the top of a tank should take heavy casualties if someone opens up with a machine gun. That never seemed to happen. I do prefer having my infantry in tracks, however. That allows them to perform their tasks without altering the task of the tanks. It's not much, but my transport tracks average one kill each, but this doesn't account for the suppression they put on AI infantry before their squad dismounts and really lays into them. The game only counts kills and not assists :)

The ATGs are purchased out of support points for delays missions. I use to have them in my core, but early war German battles tended to be more offensive in nature. Early on, if I had a mission they weren't good for, I deployed them in an overwatch position. If the AI launched a spoiling attack, they could stop it. Unfortunately, AI artillery would start clobbering them if it didn't have anything better to hit. Then I started bringing them with my core as it advanced. The guns would be deployed to cover objectives captured. This ended up not being that useful because there rarely were any AI units in the area to defend against. That's when I upgraded to the Elefants and I already explained what I did with those. I wasn't happy with Marders either because of their ammo payload. With the tanks I had, I eventually decided I just didn't need them except for in special situations. My core doesn't have anything that isn't useful most of the time. It doesn't have to kill, it just has to be useful. When I do have a delay, I go with the 50mm ATG. It's a small and relatively inexpensive gun. It can't kill heavy tanks, but I have Tigers and Panthers for that role. The 50mm will easily handle half-tracks, armored cars and light and medium tanks. Being that they are small, the target can get into effective range without spotting the gun. It's really a nice little gun.

I don't think I've used Brandenburgers in WinSPWW2, but I used the equivalent in SPWaW. They were real handy in the infiltration mode to put eyes behind the enemy lines. I used them in a PBEM game in SPWaW and managed to get a few SPAs that way. In WinSPWW2, I really haven't looked at them closely, so I don't have a useful opinion.

One thing you mentioned has me thinking now. I haven't restarted my campaign, but I'm running both the patched (3.5) and unpatched (3.0) versions of the game right now. That's because I have a PBEM game in progress with the unpatched version. Until that game is complete, I need to keep the unpatched version running.

You did mention earlier you are playing on a 200x140 map. One thing to think about here is on defend missions, the AI isn't as effective if it can't cover it's whole front. I ran a series of tests on 100x100 maps, which are what I use, where I had the AI assault the AI. It was the tested on the same map each time, with the assaulting and defending nation being 6/44 Germany. The assault to defend ration was 5:2 in both cases. Basically, I ran two models. The light model was defender 2,000 points and the assault force 5,000 points. Here the defender lost 67% of the time. In the heavy model, the defending force has 6,000 points and the assault force 15,000. In this case, the defending force won 80% of the time. Near as I can figure, if the defending AI can't get it's border to border minefield built, it doesn't stand much of a chance, even against itself. The point is, on the large map your intent may be to make things more challenging for you, but it would seem to handicap the AI in defend mission. It's only a possibility that it could handicap it. The assaulting AI finds mine fields by running over them with their tanks, over and over and over again! Leaving 20% of the assault force burning on the mines could also explain why the assault force lost. A person obviously wouldn't do that. As for all the others, I don't know. This was done to try to find the perfect balance between assaulting and defending forces. I just thought I would mention that for consideration.

On a similar note, I did try defending against at AI assault at 6:1 odds (defending 4,000 points, assaulting 24,000 points). That was a challenge. My defending force was almost completely wiped out, but I pulled a draw out of it. I inflicted enough casualties on the AI I got the draw even though I lost all the flags. There were a few things I could have done differently that might have even allowed me to win. If you want a challenge, you should try that.

RERomine
 

Be careful revisiting riders since the patch they should only be used to reach the frontline or in a must need situation.
Watch the effects if hit them now especially with a MMG its worth hosing down to see if it has a rider, certainly if grouped together so splash damage hits several.

A tall map does tend to spread the AI if it does not have the forces to cover allowing the human player to easily gain local force superiority & pick off.
Now I think about it in a campaign if you adjust the map size for battle types it will make for a better battle.

AI defending > shrink height so a more dense frontage with less ways to exploit.

AI attacking > shrink width so has to travel less & so maintains unit cohesion better.
Stop fast stuff racing ahead to much.

Re: How do I use ammo trucks?
 

RERomine: (P1) Oh, okay, 240 AFV's. I'm not sure if HT's are technically AFV's but they are armored (the A portion of AFV). It really made me wonder what else they had if they had 240 HT's. Either an indicator of a ridiculous dedication to HT's, or that their real firepower had been unstated by you, and therefore, gulp! You describe the desert attack and you mention riders on tanks, as though that's another indicator of increased difficulty perhaps. It would seem in line to some degree with your belief that riders are too protected from bombardment. This makes me curious though. Did you start a late campaign after the patch, or is this a continuation of an earlier patch campaign that may or may not have the patch applied over it? Did you perceieve any difference nonetheless? Or you were unaware or forgotten the patch's change, so that you might not be curious about the results of direct fire or bombardment post-patch on riders? Ah, mid-42, it sounds like this was pre-patch. Wow, your description of the battle reminds me very closely of one French battle I had where I was being overwhlemed. I didn't have supply problems, but naturally I had AT problems and the line was weakening. I had two small? trump cards which were just being pressed into service, that is, the enemy had advanced enough that my 88's could start firing through the diagonal cranny they were guarding. They must had slain at least 6 AFV's, and then, just like yours, the enemy surrendered. Saved me a ton of losses. I don't even think I was buying ammo trucks back then, core or support. My only defense were primarily the 88's and just hammering the baddest of the French tanks that they were moving backwards more than forward often enough due to all the suppression I was delivering. I had to hope for immobilizations and putting in enough shots to lesser AFV's in the hopes of destroying them outright. Generally I'm uninterested in suppressing the dickens out of AFV's to get them to retreat, but it's about the only hope I had. Over time, more time, it starts to occur to you that if the attacker had seperated from his infantry, just how much good is knocking those heavy tanks in retreat going to do you? Well at least retreaters aren't firing.

(P2) Ah, so there is a 300 limit of sorts. Certainly limiting to the AI if the player picks that many, as one of the AI's favorite tactics is to overwhelm with numbers. It's really impossible to do that when he is limited to 500 because of a human player's 300. It certainly gives me more reason to stay with the size of force I have. He can 5X (or hwatver the current max is) me pretty easily in terms of numbers.

(P3) Alright.

(P4) BTW, on the subject of your back row HT placement for AA, realize though I thought it might be clear to you, that there's scarcely a worse place that you could place them, AA-wise. You sound as though my placement suggestion wouldn't work for that specific battle, but I'm not so sure. Had it occurred to you that AA looks at aerial objects, that ground objects that normally block LOS, do not? Unfortunately I cannot tell you how much they do block and do not, but place them in the middle of the woods, even if their hex is wooded itself and they will fire. Will hills, especially larger ones block their LOS? I don't know, as my AA knowledge isn't extensive, but it's something to keep in mind that you may not know their full LOS capabilities either. Anyway, back to the worst placement AA-wise I can imagine. You don't put them on the back row, why? Because you have eliminated 50% of their fire arc. Place them somewhere where they at least can fire to their rear as well. I suggested the place I did, somewhat thinking nothing would block their aerial LOS, but also because it's far away enough from larger targets not to get hit on that account by arti, and also near enough to possibly shoot down what enemy air is truly interested in (AFV's), plus, as a bonus, their fire arc isn't restricted. You may be right about that specific battle not being a good spot, but placing them where 50% of the firing arc is entirely eliminated is a pretty mean feat to beat in terms of bad decision. Man, there's just so many facets to this game that we only have vague glimpses of. I wonder what doing a search for AA in the game manual would turn up?

(P5)Interesting your use of AA in mentioning what they protect. It doesn't look like a very good use again, but if you are in an attack, it's obvious you are very often achieving full aerial fire arc anyway. Note the difference in how I use them. Starting campaign I had 8 SPAA's. 4 37mm and 4 20mm, and I think 2-3 37mm grounders. 2 sections guard my 1st armored spear, the other two guard the other armored spear. I'm not worried in the least about what my infantry will suffer, in fact, I can't recall them ever being attacked by the air. True, if the enemy gets traditional bombers, that 'might' be his target, but it seems to me I've seen a lot more fighter-bombers than level bombers. And what do FB's go for? Yes, if they find any, the AFV's. As well, the FB's are a lot more damaging to AFV's than infantry. Something to think about. The only point I can see to having AA with infantry, is that they can provide some firepower at range, to soft targets. At least the beginning GE AA is entirely soft, so even that useage is compromised a bit. If they're soft and their use is pretty much strictly AA defense (which there's certainly no use for if there's no aerial attacks) then why not guard the AFV's in entireity? In my case, the SPAA is even re-directed to the armored company's commander. If I have any ground AA, they're either more rearwards, even in an attack, or they're around the infantry in static positions.

(P6) Interesting about para scouts, but in my case the scouts are so combatively useless that doing so would be more of a novelty than anything (there are some notable exceptions, such as the USSR stachel charge scouts. GE starting ones are useless fighters). At least they would be able to spot enemy arti possibly without incident, hmmm. I say they were useless, not only because I don't see the addition of panzerfausts, when they come, changing that any, due to not expecting enemy AFV's in the enemy rear and if that is true they should attack guns, but, spotting is quite another thing indeed, hmmm. I will have to at least do a novelty use of such a thing.

(P7)It depends of course to some degree how you advance and with what. If your HT's are massed with your tanks, then you see the better thing is placing them in HT's. OTOH, my riders are there for tank protection, and what few HT's I have they don't accompany tanks as part of the two spearheads. The HT's are usually part of my Steiner arm, of trying to place something of an infiltrating infantry far in advance of my general army, but also with the caveat that they are out on some flank somewhere for defensive missions. They are usually on their own in any case. The HT's are their additional firepower if needed, or their possible escape as well. My foot soldiers are less mobile than your own, but that can be largely made up by the fact that out of my 100 or so core units, I will at some point make probably 80-90% of the AFV's large enough to carry full squads, but I won't upgrade PZ1B's to PZIII's just for the sake of having more carrying capable AFV's; as I find carrying more than 4-5 squads a bit overdoing it anyway.

(P8)I understand what you say about early GE ATG's and not having used them much, but not using them, and you will see what I mean, isn't really that bad. I have a platoon's worth, not a big deal, but their ability to hide can be quite valuable. Add to it that they can move on their own, though slowly. If you shoot and scoot with them for example, on the same turn they fire, and suspect an arti response, you can starting moving them and with the new arti delays pretty much get them out of harm's way. Not that I have used them that way mind you, not yet, but I have that possibility. No, the main reason I have them is that not only do you generally get larger guns available before the AFV's do, but the more important point I will make is to not be disgusted with something because it wasn't used. You will have to look at the time where they may be more indispensible, say the USSR. So, you basically carry them to gain experience. I can't tell you how many units I get, that don't fire a shot, and yet get promoted. I used to think it was a matter of how many kills you got, or how many round were expended, or any number of things, but plainly, just having something in core will promote it sooner or later. To me, obviously, their relative early inability, is made up for what they bring when they bring later. Of course, that's part of the old me talking, as I can add them into core anytime, but even so, in my case, I think it better that first French or first USSR battle sees them as ready to rip as they can be.

(P9)I do use Brandenburgers in something of a Steiner role, but it speaks more to their being relatively on their own, probably on a flank, than trying to do arti spotting with them. They're more for combat in my case. I don't really like the 6 man squad, as they seem too large to remain invisible very long, and certainly not very combative to their costs. I will also shore up infantry at times with their the 12 man squad superior performance.

(P10)Ah, I was thinking you may not had truly embraced the new version yet. Whether the changes made will change a current campaign I do not know.

(P11)Oh yeah, I realize that if my defending on 200X140 makes things more difficult, that it makes it that way for the AI too, but this is somewhat compensated for by the fact that I play only cluster objectives. IOW, the AI is programmed to defend the clusters, but not the shotgun objecitves, so what happens is while the 200X140 will affect it some, it won't affect it as badly as it does me. Why? Because you recall that I have the frontal integrity ethos but the AI does not. As far as I can tell the AI's primary concern is good terrain, cluster objectives, and something of a random element. Mine is pretty much frontal integrity, objectives, good terrain, and some units off on their own. What's more, once I get better armor, one of my primary missions is total enemy destruction, so at that time even the more rearward, often more dangerous units will be marked by me as well. In the easier battles, nothing is as dangerous to me, as having routed/destroyed the entire main enemy line and then having to face units that have the first shot, such as AA and ATGs against my thin armor. The armor often have their infantry stripped due to not wanting losses while riding, and destroying enemy infantry gets them retreating much faster, because casualties are so gradual, thus seperating them further from the infantry. So if the advance goes along it's general pace at that point, I'm often facing rear units with only armor. If I wait to embark the infantry, that's just one more unit to hit for those lurking guns, though my visibility improves. Unfortunately I don't seem to have the patience to march the infantry up there usually. Yes, once I get more armored AFV's the rear won't look so daunting, but what I gain on, is the often is the most boring part of the game, the defensive, gains so much by that size of map to unit density that I cannot begin to fathom playing that way again (smaller in height maps). I just cannot stand the fact that a middle AFV can fire on every single flank possibly and not have to move an inch. I think there is just no facet of the gaming to me more boring than that fact. My two armored companies on such a 100X100 map, could so easily control the entire board, even without a centered high hill and no LOS obstacles inbetween, that it would be a total bore. OTOH, place the AI in that situation on a 100X100 board and see how little he controls things from such a center. The whole idea of the high map is to not only make movement as often being necessary, but also to make gun ranges more important, since practically no range can cover the flanks from the middle position. Besides, as I said before, I do get some cheap thrills, some challenge, by the size of the map often making that necessary. I never needed pickets with those lousy 20, 40, or 80 hex heighted maps of SPWAW. Even the very rare 120 hex one didn't improve things very much (but then I wasn't aware of the fun of fire brigading either). So what size map are you using BTW? As I look at things, with that size of a force you have, that 100X100 map you suggest would almost be worse than those dank SPWAW days I had. There's just too many units to the map, thereby making one huge blob of units. Why don't you try the map I suggest, I think you will find the defensive missions more satisfying. Nevermind that we are both playing GE right now. We could both be playing the USSR and there would be a lot more call for considering the quality of the defensive game. The only thing that intrigues me about your map is that it is so narrow. I will probably some day get around to narrowing my map without lowering the height, but that's quite a ways off, as the current one is just oodles of fun for meeting engagements and defensive missions. The fact that while on an offensive mission, that I cannot stay on the flank perhaps with AFV's and engage enemy units in the center adds to my delight. You see, that's part of my attack/defense routine, almost whatever nation I play, that I try to snipe away from a distance therfore making the battle proper, when it comes, more endurable. It's sort of taking the late GE AFV range advantage to the hilt. I'm not one of those wait till you see the whites of their eyes types, because I find there's less eyes to see if you have sniped a few along the way. Notice also, how the AI generally played the opposite way regarding targeting. I believe the taller map, perhaps even in the human offensive, with such a divurgence in targeting as we see here, grants the AI a small advantage more. Debateable, but it's a minor point in favor of the tall map anyway.

(still P11)You spoke of an AI lack of minefield prowess in asaults. I haven't seen it. Oh, they don't stretch from one border to the next, but at least they start on the flanks IIRC. You might also recall how I have more trouble than I ought with those boogers. Part of the reason is that there is some random mine placement, or hadn't you noticed that? My infantry amounts to about 1 1/2 to 2 companies. On a map like mine, as I cannot defend it all in strength (unlike the 100X100 map) I cannot detect the mines with certainty, even if some of them weren't random. The solution, in my view, isn't having a larger unit to map ratio, therefore more points, therefore an easier time for the AI, but for the AI to be more willing to pick mines. Me, though, I just think that facing more AFV's is more interesting than picking away at a minefied while under one lousy infantry platoon's fire. Fairly interesting, but just not better than an AI investing in ATG's and AFV's as far as I'm concerned. Sure would be nice to see a bit more pills though. Do recall another thing though, these tests aren't placing me in them. So given the same equipment, and of course that's something that differentiates me and the AI already, I wouldn't attack as the AI does, for better or worse. Frankly I don't think I could win 80% of the time with what amounts to the same sort of forces going against me, but, then again, that's part of the campaign spirit, to develope that elite corp, and what nation fought the exact same equipment and tactics that another nation did? If Canada and GB fought? GB and India? Who else? Can't think of any of the war's opposites who fought along those lines. Maybe Japan and China is the closest you would get. Naturally, you tailor your force to what you can expect and what you can get, that's far different from you having and expecting the exact same thing, only your numbers are different because you're attacking. I guess you can see the test battle doesn't impress me;).

(still P11)Good observation about what the AI is doing with mines though. So while the AI in the defensive assualt probably benefits more against me than the typical player, it's still not as good as it could be, and I agree, but that's always the problem with the AI isn't it? We try to find ways to not only make the game more interesting, but also to give the AI some reasonable chances. But as I think the AI in that situation is far better than it's ever been, it's still not primed, but you have to live with it. As much as I can find mines challenging, I have accepted the AI's deficiency there and just think they are probably better with more guns instead. Remember, dug-in guns are nothing to sneeze at. OTOH, I'm playing with a 200 height map and the AI doesn't have the problems you described when in that sort of attack. Why is that? Simple, because as I said earlier, I'm probably buying 30 mines tops. Try causing repeat losses with that few mines or less, and see how little it affects the AI. I realize the AI weakness there and adjust for it, but not only that, I think guns are just more interesting, it's something I can play with, so the AI will see more guns and less mines out of me. Problem largely solved. AI might buy 100 mines or more. I will buy 30 or less. BTW, in that situation you described, the AI defender would be so awesome if all his mines were random (within some sort of limits perhaps). Can you say slow human advance?

(P12)Oh, I've been close to that as I mentioned the French battle (I think it was 5X). I was really surprised as they obviously had a good amount of units left, and I didn't think I made a very large dent; at most 10% of the force destroyed. That was maybe 6-7 years ago though on SPWAW.

Re: RERomine
 

Great idea about adjusting the map size for the mission, to cripple human defense and help AI defense, only problem is I think the only way is random, as you can go with a size and hope the mission goes along with that. Then re-load if it does not. You have to pick the map size before the mission is stated.

Re: How do I use ammo trucks?
 

It means you either go to prefs & change size or load one of the size you want. Now generate a new map, think that will work

Re: How do I use ammo trucks?
 

Imp: No that's what I meant, you call only change it in prefs before the mission is given to you. It's possible you would therefore pick the map size to the incorrect mission type therefore. You would have to keep doing that until you randomly got the correct combination.

As far as loading one, what does that involve? IOW, do I have do to do things like pick AI forces and place them (not something I want to do)?

Re: How do I use ammo trucks?
 

Charles, I think you are still missing a few points.

I was said the following:

I was not saying calling half-tracks armored fighting vehicles, but just saying the total of AFVs and half-tracks was over 240. Looking back at the AAR I did for that battle, there were 179 tanks and armored cars destroyed and over 40 half-tracks destroyed. Additionally, the AI still had over 40 tanks still alive.

Another thing you are missing was my use of AAA in that defend battle. Enemy aircraft weren't expected because visibility was 20. This is directly out of the Game Guide:

My tracks were parked on the back edge to stay away from artillery and not to stop aircraft in this instance. As you pointed out, they can be deployed farther forward and still be relatively safe from artillery to get more benefit of their AA ability. That would have been a consideration had the visibility been high. The Game Guide says air sorties are unlikely, but not impossible and my units were out of position in this case. The same can be said for my AAA units. Since they weren't expected to be needed in that role, I figured they still could cover flanks for advancing armored cars, tracks and infantry. Once AI aircraft were seen, those that survived the first wave, repositioned to some extend. The AI targeted my AAA units in the first wave, effectively putting half of them out of action.

Keep in mind, my infantry are in tracks until they get to their attack position. The tracks are more visible than infantry on the ground and more likely to be attacked.

If I'm understanding correctly, you are saying you don't use scouts and if that's the case, all I can say is WOW! :shock: As for the panzerfausts not making a difference, in one battle, I covered one wooded flank with 4 scout units. They destroyed 3 Sherman tanks trying to move through those woods. Fighting is not their main role, however. They are great because they can get as close as two hexes from entrenched infantry without being seen. They then carefully back off and I call artillery in. I've even had them slip through minefields and find AI bunkers in the rear without being seen. The last thing I would have wanted to do was find those bunkers when they fired. As it was, I maneuvered against those bunkers and destroyed them with no losses because I knew where they were. These aren't unarmed trucks which as we've discussed that have more negatives than positives. Scouts keep other units alive. Their spotting ability is much better than regular infantry units and I don't fight without them. There are some benefits to units who's main role isn't fighting.

Re: How do I use ammo trucks?
 

Why do people keep coming up with this myth that scout classes have some magical special spotting ability?. They do not.

- Scouts are small, so more difficult to spot, provided you do not shoot or run around at full speed and draw attention to yourself.

- Some formations may give extra starting experience to scout/recce troops over line troops. Experience helps spotting, but in a campaign you will get that by survival. Fighting is not the primary role of recce troops.

- The primary role of your (core) scout teams is flank security in defence and the offence. Establish Observation Points, and observe enemy movements. Infiltrate carefully around his flanks. Both in the offence and the defence, a scout infiltrated into a good rear position in the enemy lines without being known about is priceless. Especially in a PBEM game!. Put range to 1 so they do not draw attention to themselves. If they have a radio, then the "0" element can spot arty fires. Do not deploy anywhere near line troops who will fire and attract incoming mail either. So you only need 2 scout formations in a core really - one for each flank.

Any that will be used as point men probing for defenders, minefields and bunkers ahead of your assaults, or as tripwires in front of your defence, or "security" sections in between your company teams in a night battle - buy those from support points. These are unfortunately semi-expendables, like any sappers you buy to shift the mines.

Place a sniper and/or inf-AT team 4-5 hexes behind these scouts and leave the killing jobs on any enemy detected by the scouts up to him and your arty. Scouts really only should shoot their personal weapons in self defence, or to pick off some depleted routers in the end game perhaps when the enemy force is broken, or if presented with a high enough value target (an 88 section that needs dealing with right then and now, say). A scouts "weapons" are his eyeballs Mk1 and his radio, coupled with being stealthy and sneaky. Scouts generally move at 1-2 hexes, never 3 unless needing to get out of Dodge.


This thread is now way off-topic for its title - if you need to continue, please open a new one in the campaigns sub-forum.


Cheers
Andy

Re: How do I use ammo trucks?
 

I suppose it's more perception than anything. They don't spot better, but they hide better. Still, people focus more on what they see than what they don't. When you move up on an entrenched squad and spot it you feel it's because you spot better and not that you are hiding better and just got closer than a full sized squad could. Visibly, you can't tell your scout is hiding better.

Based on what I posted earlier, I guess I'm doing it right.

I reckon we digressed a bit :rolleyes: and it's time to be done with it.

Re: How do I use ammo trucks?
 

I've got a better answer for you as to why people think they have better spotting ability.

SPWaW Manual Quote
Many people have played both and often references are made in ladders without specifically stating which product it is referring. The information gets crossed up.

Re: How do I use ammo trucks?
 

RERomine:

(P1) Aircraft not expected with 20 visibility. how do you deduce that? Sure, there's less space to shoot them down, but I don't get it. I see your game guide quote, but I still wouldn't take chances. Good to know though, maybe half to a good AA defense, the rest to maybe add to attacks (of course 'unlikely' may mean 49%). I was trying to clarify that I think HT's are technically AFV's anyway, but I don't really think of them as such. They are armored, and they can fight, just not very much is all (at least early GE ones) and their being open-topped very often, makes them definitely not precisely on the level I usually think on an AFV as, but still.

(P2)Woah, so the 'unlikely' came to pass afterall. You got set up.

(P3)Yes, I realize you do, but that was part of my point, that most air attacks aren't worried about unloaded infantry and unless it is level bombers, is unlikely to cause enough damage to make it worth the strike at them if it does. If they have no AP rounds left though, that's a pretty good place to go. I can see too, with FB's that the thing is to shoot them down so they don't pester you as much, even with no AP rounds left, but naturally that is best achieved if you can figure out where they will go. I haven't studied the AP-less FB, as the combat way of doing it is to know how many flights the AI has, and be aware of their loads, and keep track of how many times they have dropped what. Not having access to their roster, I don't think one can tell whether the next attack is the same FB or not, further complicating things. Perhaps if there is only one or two of them this is quite easy?

(P last) No I have scouts. I said they're "combatively" useless, not that they're useless totally. With Gerry anyway, I carry a scout section and an AC section. Scouts become more interesting if they carry some form of satchel charge, as indeed some of the USSR and Finn ones do; later for Germany I guess. Besides, now that you know more clearly my secondary reason for having something in core, they could fit into the category of being there to soak up just time in the core promotions for a later blossoming in hard times. With such a large map, that's not very wise though because their main purpose is to recon. I frequently lose one or two of them, and unlike some of my infantry that I might be a little protective about, since they have currently little to no weaponry, therefore my main purpose with units neglected for the time being (exp gained by combat through the core) without useful weaponry, is to use them more boldly in doing their job, which I if I have any sense, will be for them to fire little or none at all but just very forward. IOW, if a unit has a front line duty of sorts, and has no real combat value, then they're more expendable. But it's hard to really expend them, even if you want to, when you're trying not to fight with them.

As for pnzrfsts being useless for them, I was referring that only to what I would think is their secondary role, attacking rearward guns. We only got on the subject because I entertained your idea of dropping airborne scouts in the rear, otherwise my scouts would probably never be sniffing around back there. BTW, I know you can't cover everywhere with everything, and we usually think of the flanks as not being overrun, so pnzrfst scouts in the role you described could be fine, but I think you would agree that, if you could, you're much better off stopping AFV's in that situation with full squad pnzrfst capable units, not scouts.

No, don't even go the unarmed unit track with me, as obviously they have weapons (they just die far too easily once they're spotted). I'm not too aware of their stealth getting to the rear, and I would question why they would want to get as close as 2 hexes from enemy infantry and then peel back. Can't they see the infantry before then? I would think that moving to that second hex away, and then peeling back, if on the same turn, would have them spotted for all that close movement, LOS still being the same. I seem to have mine spotted far too easily against allegedly somewhat inferior infantry, but they're still not useless in my book nonetheless.

Re: How do I use ammo trucks?
 

Hopefully the last OT question from me. If recon scouts get 25% spotting bonus, how does that translate? 25% further out in hexes? 25% as a "chance" to spot, in other words a die would be cast every turn and each turn they would have 25% more chance to spot than typical infantry?

Re: How do I use ammo trucks?
 

That's SPWaW and not WinSPWW2. As such, I doubt it's appropriate to discuss this here.

As for responses to the other items, I am starting a new thread over in the Campaigns Sub Forum as per Andy's request entitled "Operational Discussion".

Charles
 

Sorry last time I am going to say something but please try exploring diffrent things in the game & grasping how they work, you may well find you enjoy the game more for doing so & certainly will become more effective at commanding your units.
I am refering currently to scouts.

You are all for getting your experience up so your troops perform better but you are wasting your scouts who probably 2nd to FOOs are the guys you want to improve for an easy game. At least they are in your core

Scouts will inevitably die as its not the best job going but what is his role.

To observe & sneak around relaying info & to aid this hes a tricky guy to spot.
Most start with a 3% exp bonus so he sees very marginaly better than a standard squad. Sometimes seems more as should be moving cautiously if a threat is likely.
Now what happens when his experience climbs
He gets an extra shot & more chance overal of hitting but thats not very important.
What is important is he develops a knack for knowing where the enemy are & seeing them. Hes also developed his stealth skills a bit more & manages deep recon like RERomine mentioned without biting the dust.
Of course if a choice target comes into view he can use all his skills to close & take it out if need be.
He is in fact a bit of a catch 22 unit in that you want him to survive & become proficent at the job but when he is risking him in woods & the like leading the way becomes hard to resist because he has an edge.

Sorry to be a party pooper but if you take the time to explore the game you will find you missed half of it. For instance you have not even loaded a map, what about the map generator to tailor the map to what you want, combined arms the list goes on & on.
Learning by doing is also far more effective than asking or making assumptions.

Re: How do I use ammo trucks?
 

As I've mentioned elsewhere, I worked up a proper staff table for a Recce Regiment. I even included the Admin troop which was 15cwt and 3 tonner trucks along with a Signals troop which was 3 15cwt trucks and 3 jeeps. I'm only slighty annoyed that I can't find single place motorcylces for the Don Rs :-).

When I realized there were Ammo trucks and crates, the TO&E was modified a second time part way through a game trying to figure out correnct arrangements. This time with the Squadron HQ of 1 Jeep, 1 LRC (Humber Ironsides MK III) 6 15cwt trucks and 5 3 tonners. Some of those are stores, some are ammo. The stores trucks and HQ unit are set up in the rear (town or field under cover) and the 2nd HQ element (the LRC is the OC's rover) stays there. I can take a jeep and lead the 2 or three ammo trucks to go and resupply a Recce Troop which will pull back from the probing and resupply them I think. (I haven't had time to put this to the test)

Suffice to say, on a BIG map, your support elements aren't going to be too far away. You DO need to escort them. Even dispatch riders, when things were dicey with germans still about, got an escort by the Division's Armoured Cars. Once you have contact with the enemy, your armoured cars should be used for rear area security and escorting of your supply columns forwards to resupply points for your units that are on the front lines. If you make the ammo smaller, in the form of ammo cannisters, I would think you can drop them off the bigger trucks, send the infantry's transport back to collection points and get that.

If you're going to be realisitc, you need to account for the need for Beans and Bullets, at least once a day.

Re: How do I use ammo trucks?
 

It's simple really.... this is not and never was intended to be a game where logistics have anything but a perhiperal use so we are not concerned with "Beans and Bullets" beyond a rudimentary resupply capability and there is absolutly no purpose in the game for "Don Rs " ( or dispatch riders for those who don't know what a "Don R" is ) and. more importatly, neither Andy not I have the least bit of interest in making it so and I really don't belive the vast majority of players would appreciate an expanded logistics role in the game.

That said, MOBHhack is included so players can modiify things to suit they're particular needs and interests so have fun :) that's why it's there

I can appreciate why your background would lead you to have a greater interet in that area. However, consider that in the game "a BIG map" covers an area only 2.5 x 2 miles with half that being the enemies part of the front so at best a big map may may represent a mile or so from the actual fighting and most people don't use a really big map to fight on nor the maximum number of turns




Don

Re: How do I use ammo trucks?
 

I'm a realism guy as you probably figured out by now. I will point out, that from an organizational standpoint, a Don-R was an established element down to front like units. From a Recce perspective, the Don R-s would either hang out at Squadron HQ OR they'd trail behind the probing armored cars as the last man in. If things went pear shaped, they'd move back to the rear. Using them for a trailing element allows for them to ALSO know where the armoured cars are when they turn into a harbor at night. From a resilience standpoint, jeeps are in the same durability range as a Don-R is.

50 meters per hex right? 160x200 hexes are the largest maps I've seen. that's 8000 meters by 10,000 meters. That's nearly 5 miles by 6.2 miles.

Mind you, I was not asking for Don-Rs. I was pointing out, that there is a context for vulnerable vehicles in the FEBA doing their normal business and that when you DO have to move such vehicles forwards it should be under the auspices of some sort of escort. That's one of the duties of Armoured cars. Don-Rs would be, for the most part, be entirely abstract in purpose for the game and I realize that. Though, I suppose it would be interesting as a means of maintaining contact for morale purposes between two levels of HQ. But then we'd have to hang out the Royal Signals lamp and establish a Signals Office somewhere. ;-)

Re: HQ
 

Depends very much on the country & indeed individual commanders.
If talking WWII how many Russian Italian Commanders do you think directed from the front to name but 2, even the Germans the good ones but by no means all. One would stay behind in the command post the other forward often with the top guys rotating the roles each day so had first hand experience of the tactical situation so yes you could call your HQ a 2 man unit but he is supposed to represent the chain of command.

Even on the biggest map if your HQ & associated gear is on the map you have seriosly screwed up thats why they had transport to get back to it.

You could indeed depict a raid or break through to your HQ if made some units. Most people would be none combatants so low experience pistols maybe some SMGs or the odd rifle, grenades doubtful though could chuck a wrench. These would be clerks cooks maintenance & the like thrust on the front line.
Unless a combat formation managed to fall back their fate is pretty much assured thats why they are not on the map.
Totaly vital guys without whom the grunts can't survive let alone do the job.

Re: How do I use ammo trucks?
 

This is what happens when I rush an answer.

IDK what I was thinking when I quoted those numbers but I should have checked what I wrote . 4.9 X 6.2 miles would be the actual area on the map if you use 50 metres as the standard. Use 50 yards as the standard and it's 4.5 X 5.6 miles. Either way it's more than what I quoted.

There are no plans at all to allow vehicles to be towed or unstuck or repaired during a game. All that is assumed to be handled after the battle.

Don

Re: How do I use ammo trucks?
 

Just an observation guys. I can get sidetracked from a thread's subject matter all too easily myself, and most of the time I don't mind sidetracking occuring because of that, but I do find it rather ironic that RERomine took up the suggestion to start another thread to handle that sidetrack, and yet much, if not all of this last page has anything to do with ammo trucks. It's fine by me, as I hate starting new threads anway, but I thought y'all might find that at least amusing:angel. I understand how the sidetrack I was involved in was much lengthier but the same thing appears to be going on here, just in another direction.

Did we corrupt you guys that much?

Re: How do I use ammo trucks?
 

Yes. it's getting a bit boring.

If people cannot keep the thread to the topic of ammo truck use, then I think we will have to lock it.

Andy

Re: How do I use ammo trucks?
 

Well how's about getting back on track ammo truck-wise then?

I post the following as a point of consideration for campaigners against the AI, how scripted campaigns would work in this regard, I do not know.

It occurs to me that the AI doesn't use ammo trucks (or buy them), and therefore that usually is giving the player an unfair advantage, just like airdropping when we know the AI cannot do the same thing. There are limits to this needless to say, that we should never do anything because the AI does them not, but the question should always be on our minds to police ourselves and see if we aren't giving ourselves a large advantage, and then, perhaps, complain how the AI is terribly lacking, when we have a significant part in the blame.

As for me, I have been using ammo trucks with my forces, but it's to somewhat shore up a disadvanatge I often suffer from the AI, so it's not a great advantage by any means. And that is I use the one of the two ammo trucks I have, primarily to feed the four IG's in core. That and a core 100mm btry are usually all the artillery I have, so you can see how giving the IG's more ammo isn't too bad to somewhat match the AI having much more artillery than I do. On rare occasions, usually after the battle is already half way through, I may have a need for that 2nd ammo truck to add ammo to some of the units who had really lost a lot of ammo. Yes, that is an advantage over the AI. Not a significant advantage for the most part, particularly since it's so late in the fight they're used, and because it is only one truck for that, so the re-supply amount isn't terribly great.

If I am correct, the AI wouldn't use ammo trucks well anyway. Probably do lame things like march with the advance and start feeding front line AFV's. OTOH, getting units that are depleted to go to some safe zone to meet it would probably take a programming miracle this game would not have attempted.

Just something to consider in your gaming.

Re: How do I use ammo trucks?
 

The use of ammo trucks is a matter of taste.
I use them, not many but I have some, and they are a part of the strategy.

The advantage I get in having these vehicles, I make up to the AI in numbers & strength.
So the AI gets to buy more stuff than me. And often, the AI has masses of arty of all kind, onboard and off board, pounding away on my forces.

I would really love to see those enemy ammo trucks driving away in the middle of an enemy attack or advance. I guess many in here have seen the results of an ammo dump going of, with secondary explosions. I have lost a few because of that.

When I think of it.
Have anyone tried, or thought about using them as IED.
Just think about it. You are expecting an enemy advance through a dense forest, or something similar, where you can place your ammo dump or vehicle.
You place it so the enemies don’t see it before its one hex away; my guess is that the AI will blast away on that unit. That would do some damage on the enemy, wouldn’t it?

Re: How do I use ammo trucks?
 

Ages ago I had a real tough battle for both sides, he had managed to reload his TOS-1s But I was after them & he was having to use them in direct fire mode vs my tanks. There were lots of little clumps of close cover & on his turn 3 ammo trucks charged my armour. Stopped 2 at a couple of hexes which if I remember both blew up the third got right up to a tank but luckily did not go bang when it died.
It was a totaly crazy battle you would load the game & see a tank company had vanished before even hitting the replay button.