Operational Discussion
 

It was a combination the Game Guide reference and experience. I've never been hit by aircraft before with visibility that low. There's a first thing for everything, I suppose. My force was deployed as deemed appropriate for the most likely scenario. Artillery was expected to be the bigger threat since my force was pinned in a static defensive position. The nice thing about it was I could still be wrong and come out with a decisive victory.

Every once in a while, the unexpected happens.

There isn't anything you can practically do with estimates on what ammo a plane has left. You go and adjust based on that estimate and planes that haven't made a pass show up. I'm not looking for a lean core, I'm looking for a fast and flexible one. Infantry on foot may suffer less of a risk of air attack, but they face other risks instead. Replacing one risk with another has to have more going for it than just that. Being dismounted still isn't a guaranty the units won't get hit by aircraft. I've had infantry strafed before. It's not as likely if there are bigger, more visible targets around. All things considered, I would rather the airstrike go for a loaded half-track than a tank.

Seems to me that keeping your more valuable units from stumbling into an AI kill zone is a very noble task. Let me ask you this, do you artillery observers stand on the line with your infantry and trade shots with the enemy or do you use them? Technically speaking, they aren't necessary as company and battalion zero units can call in artillery and they are armed like scouts. They don't have to be in your core and neither do scouts, but both perform their mission better if they gain experience. Scouts infiltrate better and FOO artillery response times lower. Both of these aspects make your artillery more effective and that does kill.

Well, scouts can either act as intelligence gathering assets or as fighting scouts, where they seek out valuable targets. A panzerfaust team has more shots to work with, but are smaller and less likely to survive an infiltration move. The scout team is larger, but generally a one shot deal. I have had scouts without panzerfausts destroy tanks before. In those cases, they were accidents where the tank tried to run over an unseen scout. Even without panzerfausts, they have uses beyond just scouting. Once you infiltrate the AI position and you have artillery hit an anti-tank gun, artillery position or what have you and the crew begins to run, the scout can engage them to make sure they don't come back. They also can move into the hex of the abandoned gun and destroy it to make sure it can no longer be used. Every battle eventually reaches a stage where there is no more useful scouting to be done. That's where these other tasks come in handy.

Scouts spotting ability, and that of all units, depends on it's experience. Sometimes, I've spotted entrenched infantry at 3 hexes. Other times at 2 hexes. This is for assault missions only. You can spot at a greater range on other missions. I don't keep getting closer when I spot the enemy, but just stop for the rest of the turn. If artillery is available, I may call it in that turn or wait until the next turn. It depends on how quickly it will hit. Next turn, they start pulling back. You can't move their full movement or they will be spotted. They should have one or two turns to pull back to a reasonably safe range from the artillery before it hits. If an FOO can't see the target, the artillery may be off target so this has to be taken into consideration.

Your scout should survive this whole process, except maybe your own artillery, for a couple of reason. If they are part of your core, they will be more experienced and this will allow them to spot the enemy units at more of a distance. In a campaign, the AI units you are spotting are typically national average experience. You have the edge here. Scouts are small units (size 0) and hard to see, even when moving.

Re: Operational Discussion
 

P1 - Yes, a lot of mistakes don't add add to changing the victory level, but they still cost points overall, somethign I'm a stickler for.

P2 - Alright

P3 - You would rather air go for a loaded HT than a tank? DO you mean a tank with riders, or just a tank? I presume you mean just a tank. I presume I would too, but of AA defense is what got us to that point, so recall you were the one who dedicates the majority of your SPAA to infantry. I was the one who wa telling you that air is not too interested in the infantry, therefore you see the need but not executing it, unless, that is, you wish to start more protecting that armor now.

Would it be accuarate to say, that you would flank with your advancing infantry the sides of the board, then protect them with SPAA, thinking you were better protecting not only tanks but infantry better that way? Could be, but do recall that an SPAA, or AA any on the map, that is onan edge is having it's arc of fire severely limited. It is my opinion that not only is it less gamey, but it is also more protective, but by your earlier description of them on the defense, persuming no air, you certainly weren't flank happy in that case, but probably mis-read this idea of protecting the whole map by cramming the advancing flanks.

Tell me, for all you have seen of the SP series, wouldn't you say that the AI does far better with his aerial support than does the human, that he manages to destroy more frequently the AFV's for example?

From my experience, enemy air is none too concerned about the front line unles sit be a hill loaded with AFV's. He is more interested in the units just behind the front. You seem to think that an HT for what little they may be attacked, getting attacked with loaded infantry isn't worth the infantry being sfaer on foot and infantry and HT both surviving. I say both surviving because I do not expect the AI will target the unladen HT, but as we know, it's somewhat academic anyway, consdiering how the Ai air just loves the AFV's. There probably isn't a strike that goes by where if he hasn't spotted an AFV beforehand, he spots it in flight.

So having said all of that, I am curious as to what all this speed gains you. Are you on some sort of reduce the turns kick to increase difficulty? If we got rewards for exiting units, I would be more interested in a more mobile force, or at least using what I have in a more mobile way. Do you think armies load up onto HT's because speed is so important (WWII armies I mean) that under imminent threat of air strikes they just keep driving along? I don't see my score increasing by speed, more likely lessening for the more risks, nor do I see it influencing the experience generated. Oh, now I recall, your fear of AI arti. Yes, I fear your huge force has brought part of that on, and since I imagine your map is smaller than mine (I don't think you have ever stated the size precisely) the AI has more chance to hit you, so you think you can move away from it a lot, but I think ratio-wise, unless I do some miracles with my counter-batterying and movement, that you suffer from it much more than I do. Or to be more precise, you used to. It seems a simple conclusion to reach, as arti nugs me so little, however I'm adjusting to it, that when I'm attacking anyway, even my foot infantry is often staying ahead of it, or if it doesn't the damage is none too great. If I left my infantry in anything open-topped (not saying you do this specifically) when it was raining down, if I were thinking defeat was slowing down for it, and got hit by it, then yes, I would fear it all the more, but it seems your adjustment period to more mobility came because you are enjoying less harassment from arti for that increased mobility.

I think after you made the adjustment, not before, but after you got the sense of the AI arti pulse; the same as I got without changing much of anything. So knowing the pulse, and using mobility more, who's to say just which is more important. I would guess knowing the pulse myself. You see, if bombardment falls at your heels all the time (hitting behind your advance to very little or no effect), does it matter if it's a couple more hexes from your heels? OTOH, our forces are very different in size and map. I tell you that arti is not much of a problem over here by knowing when to move and how much (and a few more minor factors), and in what terrain of course, but your AI is probably so limited and your map so small, with a much higher density of units, that you have to almost run around to avoid it. I realize I can't possibly be entirely accurate there, but we are talking about two very different beasts here, and I think it's time we realized that we aren't facing the same things, even allowing how we're playing in different years.

Maybe I'm wrong, maybe you're just bored with marching any foot units to any degre, and we know you think it's just way too easy using tank riders. So let me put you slightly on the spot here, using your own concern for 'realism' shall we call it, in the form of not using riders because they don't suffer enough whenn hit, to say, have you ever known a WWII formation that was ever as mobile as yours? I realize it's not particularly a good idea to always base our force as some national representative, like we can't have more PZIVH's than Panthers (even though after the Panthers got more fully produced the last two years plus, they were actually out-pacing PZIV production), but I'm not so sure any force was as mobile as yours. If you still want to be that way that's fine, but it may be denying you of some of the experiences any real Gerry formation had to worry about, but I'm appealing to your sense of realism here, and other than seemingly being able to dodge more arti, something to consider certainly, I see no benefit. I suppose it's your PBEM that has done this and you adapt one technique to fit all. All I can tell you, is you can become a lot less mobile on my map, with the size of my force, and still have it not rip you to shreds, providing you're playing the AI. You get a whole lot more arti for your huge amount of units on a smaller map, and you can get some wacky arti idea from PBEM'ers, or at least much more effective use therein. That must be it. Take my last battle for instance meeting with poland, though it was one of my mroe exceptional decisives, and that is that I lost only 65 men and three AFV's, and 1 Storch. Does that sound like arti problems to you? Other than the sniper, he didn't wipe out even one squad of my infantry. Well you can probably nevermind this, I'm probably only aggravating you, but I don't mean to. I just want to see what's making you tick. I already got the idea of the airborne scouts, that might prove useful should I think it doesn't give me too much of an advantage (note how the AI will never make air drops). If I can do that as what I deem as too successfully, with too much impact, then I will have to cut back on it or eliminate it, but of course I haven't tried it yet.

P4 - Arti observers are not only 4X weaker than scouts in the GE sense, but they're usually armed worse, if that's possible. Why would I front line them? Unlike scouts are primarily for spotting a front, the FOO is for directing bombardment at a quicker rate, uusally my arti is accuraye enough through them, that not only are they not seeing the targeted area, but they are also moving in some cases. Spotting through anything else just takes way too long fo rme, and I think the accuarcy is good enough, especially since their most primary task is to direct against any onboard arti I may find in the rear. Yes, I do use him in core.

P5 - no, I wasn't talking about some puny pnzrfst team, I was referring to an entire "full" squad of infantry when I made that comment of bettering scouts on a flank.

P6 - You said you stop the scout after hitting that 2 hexes away, okay. And you also said you "peel back". That's what I was talking about, not you moving forward with the scout anymore. You still haven't necessarily answered the question. You seem to have the practice of stopping for the turn at that point, and then the next turn even moving within one possibly. But while saying you stop within two may not be comclusive, ebcause if indeed you ever do peel back in that situation, there is no statement as to if that was mistaken words on your part, thereby you never peel back (unlikely) or that you might be able to move again, but only backwards on the same turn without being spotted. But of course our scouts are probably extermely different as I'm just starting out with them; too clumsy with them or not, so I can't expect anything like what you say you're doing just yet.

Well yeah I realize they would be spotted with full movement, but I was talking about the 2 hexes away, being the 1st movement, the peel back of one hex being the 2nd of the same turn (or maybe the next turn). I guess it's somewhat immaterial when I realize now you're on an entirely diffent plane of experience. the only hope was that yours went that far and weren't any better than the early ones I have.

P last - Yes, I know all that basic stuff. Virtuallt all functions get better with experience. Hmmm, speaking of which, I don't recall, I might had just forh=got, anybody telling me my conclusion that ammo trucks don't dish out ammo more quickly with more experience.

Hmm, bring up another point. Needless to say everything isn't improved by experience, as probalt infantry doesn' take less losses to bombardmnet through exp, though it's possible IRL. What about road speed? How many times do you tell the AFV to go on to the full amount the movement arc specifies om a road, and it ends up with some funky bonus hex or two beyond that limit once it gets there? I'm curious if more exp could possibly make that much more likely.

Re: Operational Discussion
 

By the way, given of our uncertainty about this latest patch, I just thought of something related to my "why you went mobile" speel, it is this. I don't know what we were talking about before, but recall how you mentioned for what seemed like the first time where you were in your campaigns, and I was surprised these weren't new ones? The same could be said, interestingly enough about your mobility change. IOW, you changed seemingly due to running from arti, and probably some mor eminor additonal factors, but chew on this a while, and forgive me if I brought this up before, but the arti routine has been changed. It's likke it was on the patch 2 patches before this one. In the nexy to the last version something screwed up there, I think it was the ability of the aI to pick overwhelming amounts of arti. Understand, the arti looks the same for my thus far limited play, but I never even bothered playing on the next to the last patch when I heard about what arti bug it had. So you might want to look at the latest fixes and figure out if your taking in the last patch will affect the arti fix in your current campaigns or not. It would be wild if it changed each time your campaigns each time you patched, if you had been through all three versions.

I noticed the "listed fixes" included this:

5) On map Arty command units have been removed from the list of units able to act as spotters. They can no longer call indirect artillery missions which was allowing an arty cheat that existed back to SP2

I don't think the bug I saw they said they had fixed pre-patch, was listed there. It seems much more significant than the one above. I assume they fixed it and didn't list it. I found another bug they fixed that they didn't list a few days ago too.

Re: Operational Discussion
 

This is incorrect. Four SPAA units typically cover one tank platoon and four SPAAs cover two SS infantry companies, so the armor receives proportionally more protection. But as you said, they don't have riders. What would you protect more, infantry in tracks or Tigers and Panthers with somewhere close to 1,000 kills? I know the answer to that. Even with out the kills, the tanks are just more valuable assets. I have to provide the infantry and tracks with some protection, however so each company gets two SPAAs.

I don't do anything radical with air defense. If my core moves in mass, SPAAs take up position on the main body flanks and rear. If they have to break up differently to accomplish the mission, I adjust the coverage based on what is available. One infantry company with only two SPAAs obviously can't have them on both flanks and the rear since there just aren't enough.

Yes!!! One of the reasons I don't use air strikes much is I find them to be as much a risk to my forces as the AIs forces. It's bad enough to lose a tank, but it's worse to lose one to your own plane. The AI, on the other hand, seems to rarely have blue on blue attacks. It is very deadly with it's air strikes. They are worse than artillery.

I see AI aircraft about 20% of the time, but it has infantry and machine guns all of the time. The infantry is safer in the tracks. Of the 20% of the times I see them, probably half are on defend missions and the infantry is in entrenchments or fire pits anyhow. When they are in tracks, it's only to get to into attack position so they really are dismounted most of the time. They can't do their main job unless they dismount.

Just for clarity, the infantry stays dismounted until they actually need to move out. I've lost too many infantry units sitting in tracks to artillery while waiting at the LD.

Whether on foot or with transport, as long as the units keep moving, AI artillery isn't a great risk. It does a great job of firing where we've been and not where we are. Added speed allows me more operational variations. Speed helps greatly on assault missions. From the point you start clearing mines, you have about 3-4 turns before the AI start hitting the area with artillery. On your large map, the AI mines should be more scattered, but on the 100x100 map with the value of my core there is always a minefield from top to bottom. There is no going around it. It has to be breached. Now, I could just move back and wait until the AI finishes the barrage, but I usually just try to get through.

Quite correct. The bottom line is does it work. Sounds like your way works for you and mine works for me. My tactics may change based on who I'm fighting and the terrain. I've done lots of different things, dismounted attacks, air assaults, mobile defenses, flanking maneuvers, etc. I've also got PBEM games against people going. No tanks or tracks. Just infantry, guns and mortars. Truck transport for the guns and mortars because you have to move them. People will counter battery fire much more frequently than the AI will.

Charles, you are grasping at straws a bit here now. Do you think that the German army which fielded millions of men didn't have enough half-tracks to mount two infantry companies? Rationally, you would similarly equip companies in the same battalion with similar equipment so they can continue to function as a unit. It's only as fast as it's slowest unit. But if you want a name, I would suspect Kampfgruppe Peiper during the Battle of the Bulge would qualify. This brigade had 4,800 men and 600 vehicles. That one vehicle for every 8 men. On December 24th, when Kampfgruppe Peiper was finally destroyed, allies captured their remaining equipment in La Gleize: 28 tanks, 70 half-tracks, and 25 artillery pieces. I don't think it's a big leap of faith to conclude there were more half-tracks than just 70 in the brigade, so squeezing out 28 to mount two companies wouldn't be difficult.

Artillery has it's moments. Sometimes it's a real killer and sometimes it just makes tooth picks out of trees no where close to me. While I don't remember the exact details, that battle I keep referring to where I had AP ammo problems, I lost only 20 men and had a couple of damaged tanks. Destroying 179 tanks and armored cars and inflicting over 600 casualties was a nice return for my efforts. Since my casualties were so low and my force was relatively static being the battle was a delay, I can only conclude artillery wasn't a factor in that battle. There was a note that I only lost 29 men and no tanks in the battle before, so artillery probably wasn't a factor in that one as well. Either that or I just handled it well.

In the same manner that the FOO doesn't fight, but has a useful role, the same applies to scouts. They can serve as additional eyes for your unit. A set of eyes that can get closer to AI units without getting shot at most of the time. Once you have spotted the AI units, you can deal with them as you see fit: artillery, tanks, infantry, airstrikes. The other option is you spot them with some other unit only after the AI unit shoots at you. Think of them as a life insurance policy for your more expensive core units.

I missed that, but I didn't have any infantry in the area. It really wasn't critical, however because I hand MkIVs and Tigers outside of the woods. I just wasn't going to run my tanks in looking for other tank. It was just a bonus that the scouts got the kills, but if they hadn't, my tanks would have.

I guess I should clarify this a touch more. My scout backs up because I typically hit infantry encountered this way with artillery. My objective is to save the scout. There are many other options available, however. You could just keep the scout in place and engage the spotted infantry with direct fire from tanks. The scout will be safe from that. Another option could be to start working the scout around the spotted infantry unit. He's been spotted, so there's no benefit to keeping the scout there watching it and you may not have the ability to engage it immediately with artillery or direct fire. With scouts, once you an AI unit close, always move one less than the maximum and the scout will more than likely remain hidden. It's pretty easy to do. Just be patient with it. Since you are use to working with dismounted units, I don't suspect this will be a problem.

No, they don't resupply any faster with more experience. Experience only helps reduce suppression from attack and aids in rallying suppression.

Experience doesn't increase road speed. As mentioned, it will help reduce suppression, aid in rallying, increase shots per turn, increase accuracy and increase spotting ability. There may be some others. Resupply is much more critical if you have highly experienced units, because their number of shots increases, but the ammo payload does not. My Tigers, firing 8 shots per turn can go through their ammo fairly quickly. There's nothing worse than a highly experienced unit with an empty gun.

Re: Operational Discussion
 

This was to fix an odd bug where, through a series of plotting artillery, cancelling artillery and then using the artillery command unit to plot it again, you could get it to fall with zero delay. I don't remember the exact steps, but I tested it and it was definitely a bug.

The patch won't be a factor, because I quit the old campaign and started a new one. My core is now only about 2,900 points since they are in their first battle. I'm still looking for the same general core model, but didn't have the points to get there right now. One tank company, two panzer grenadier companies (w/trucks), FOOs, ATGs and scouts. No artillery, anti-aircraft and resupply right now. Artillery and resupply came out of support points and I went without AAA.

Re: Operational Discussion
 

RERomine:
You're still not getting it. Now I didn't realize part of your SPAA was guarding one mere tank platoon, but I'm telling you should be protecting ALL your armor, not just that one platoon -and- taking that mostly pointless (as used) infantry SPAA and give it to the armor. Total armored protection; no infantry protection. If I wany a novelty AA for the infantry, maybe some towed AA.
Understood.
I know what you mean, but I doubt I will abandon them. I have had maybe a total of 20 FB strikes on this new patch, and maybe a couple of them on my own guys. That's real good though, as I'm sure you know. I think there's a way to make self-beating almost non-existent, but it takes time to figure out how, Natrually that means you certainly can't hit frontal areas much if you have units within 7 hexes or fewer. I suppose 10 or more hexes away is fairly safe, depending on aerial angle.
I don't see how you can say an infantry is safer in an open-tooped vehicle than on foot (concerning air strikes. Even IRL that isn't so. You have 12 guys crammed together, with often the easiest part to hit from the air, the top, being fully exposed. Before you say it, "no, they hit the sides", I will ask you why so many AFV's get lost to air strikes, and I will give you a clue, it's not because the air strike hit the side armor. Now there are 'some' topped HT's in the game, but I dont' think Gerry has any, unless it's for a reduced squad only (6 men or less). I think you have this "riders don't suffer enough on tanks" influencing you here. Besides, appealing to your rider common sense again, apply it here, though it would doubtlessly be more painful. Just why are they more safe? It makes no sense.

It seems the unrealism you see in riders is also commonplace with passengers of HT's as well. In my case, I accept that "if" riders, my main form of mobility, are inadequately treated in losses, nevermind that they almost never get fired upon that way in my case, then I have not a lot of choice if I wish to mobilize my infantry some (besides, it's not like the AI doesn't do it also). The same could easily be said, when you have just stated they're safer from air attack by "being on an HT". That just doesn't make sense. I personally think you're wrong, that they are considerably more vulnerable (if hit), but you're completely at the mercy of the AI should that air attack come at that HT. It doesn't matter where it is. Now if you want to say, that you're infantry is better off because they can get away easily from an arti attack than on foot, well that's a no-brainer, but to say they're safer against an air strike they can't hide from, which in our example IS going to hit them anyway doesn't add up. Ironic too, if you have been speaking as I interpeted you, is like I said before, the fact of Air strike priorities. IF your HT is laden, the air has MORE reason to attack it, successful or not, than it does unladen, for seperate units are far harder to kill with one plane and are two less costly units, but hitting something laden offers the chance of knocking out multiple units. Considering that, ironically, if you had told me your tanks are protected better by having laden HT's, it would had made more sense, buy wouldn't had sounded like it did. Because when that HT is laden it's a more valuable target, therefore making it less likely the tanks get targeted.

now that I have made that point, the rest of your message sounds as though you might agree with those conclusions, but we are coming from two different type of arial attacks here. To me, if you really meant and indeed were being attacked by MG-only air, well, you're still in worse trouble if you're open-topped, but realize for one thing, that I wasn't thinking on those terms of that tpye of aircraft. To me, those types are mere gnats and aren't worth bothering about, but I would still say they're worse for being in the HT, but you do seem to at least acknowledge the infantry should be grounded most of the time if possible. But, now cosider the angle of approach I had. I was describing air as I would use it, that is, FB's, which I thoguht the AI used alot of, in preference, as it should be, to mere MG-only fighters. Now I realize that technically the ME110 had MG's only or the one I use anyway, but there's maybe 6 AP rounds there, sufficient to rip though any HT armor, top or otherwise. I'm not sure out of each gun, just how many AP's are used on a hard target, either 1 or 2 I would imagine, such that it can achieve exactly what I buy them for: the hope of multiple passes with ammo able to rip through the top of most any AFV, but it is a different beast than many of the early war fighters who have no AP rounds.

I'm also not at all sure just what an AP-less fighter could do should hit the open top with or without being laden. If you are impressed by side armor, as I was once, that you think the AP-less won't be a btoher because such a high percentage of the Ht is armored, then you have to take into consideration what I said about the ratio of top hits. I cannot begin to tell you how that works on HT's but I would hope, if it were my HT, that it wouldn't create the same effect that when a truck is hit anywhere; it just might. How does it work when hit? From what I said earlier bears in mind here a swell, since you are playing PBEM too, part of what you're getting "isn't" the same as I'm seeing. In this case a lot of what you seen may be your PBEM'er targeting differently than campaign AI with his air, and subsequently if the subject is AI air, it can skew your vision somewhat, but seeing as how I can't recall the last HT being aerially attacked, perhaps you should elaborate?
Alright.
Alright. But let me interject somethine here; a challenge. You spoke earlier of the unrealistic treatment of riders on tanks after being hit, so apparently there's some desire for realism there, so I would like to propose something else to you. no wi realize how you playing two completely different brains, can skew your views. What I bring up is something on my own mind as well, but it's far easier because I will never be playing non-AI's. We discussed the airborne scouts, I'm guessing this has far too large an impact on the AI game, not even having tried it yet. But against non-AI I bet it seems almost a prerequisite, doesn't it? So there's my problem. Isn't it unfair to use airborne scouts, which seemingly can often have a huge effect (relatively easily guiding arti to smite both AA and arti) when the AI NEVER will? When the AI often throws arti into zones miles from anything (nothing we can do about that), doesn't that make this more like a serious cheat? I understand doing it for novelty every blue moon, and I understand it did happen at times, that sort of thing IRL, but, and this is a huge but, the enemy can -and- did do the same sort of thing. We already know the AI cannot. If this is done regularly, it will make things way too easy as I'm seeing it. In frequent use or none at all is what I suggest.
Germany not fielding two companies of men in HT's? Of course not, but for the rider realists out there, I'm sure the same could be said there (I'm not referring to you with that remark). In either case both sets weren't spending all their travel time in them, if that's any consolation.

It's intersting that your mobile example was an infiltration unit. Is this to say your entire outfit is a Steiner formation? I guess my asking about making things too easy with airborne scouts will hit a resounding thud then. I'm starting to question now, just how you should think that anything anyone could do against the AI is off-linits, or should be, when you I'm starting to think you're as bad or worse. Again, I symphathise with your PBEM play compromising what otherwise would be mcuh clearer to you against the AI. I'm not sure you should even suggest that a high map is too difficlt for the AI (not that you would know personally) in my case then, but for the sake of learning I carry on. I think I more than adequately how the Ai is compensated for their alleged weakness in that matter. Whether it's sufficient or not, by the means of on the field results, apparently only I could say at this point.

Okay, so you have seen some arti lapses anyway running counter to your fear of them at some point. BTW, on one meeting engagement I had, back in the SPWAW days, I actually had a complete shutout of the enemy. Funny thing too, because I had some pretty good arti on me, and I guess I just never lost a man to it. I wasn't trying for a hutout, and probably would be hugely difficult to try, would hav eprobably throw some huge gamey concepts in to achieve it on even a semi-regualr basis; it just happened. Actually to see points lost down to less than 25 is a pretty big shocker too. I guess with a 3300pt force, it's pretty regular to lose 100pts. I guess if you never tried to give heavy pursuit to the eenmy it would come much easier, but i have always been into the destructive angle if it seemed to profit me.
Yes, that's why I often see them as expendable. I don't want them ever destroyed, but one or two losses in men I anticipate.
Well that's good, because I was starting to wonder if you were some kind of scout as ubermen fanatic or if you had used them enough to learn some unintended trick.
True.
Ah, so ammo trucks, which are so easily destroyed, if hit, are as useless in core as I thought. Most of the time, any wise player would have them so far removed from direct fire, that only arti can reach them, I can tell you from a support ammo feeding my 4 IG's constantly, that should arti come their way, there's virtually no way they survive. Even if they do survive, and we're talking about a guy who had 40 more horizontal hexes than you do, there's so much territory behind a well-placed unit, that routing off the board should be all but impossible; especially if we're talking GE ammo's. Early USSR ammo's OTOH.....retreat before the arti gets there.
I see what you mean, but the reverse is true to soem extent as well. In the overall battle, if the Tiger destroys everything withthe 1st shot, then there's less call for ammo. IOW, the experience to much more easily destroy the target, due to increased accuracy, demands less shots to get the kill. So overall the very experienced uses considerably less total ammo than his less experienced bretherin, but in probaly quicker time. Of course, there are ways to adjust that too, despite that we're often in the attitude emptying those AP shells is the primary task. One could, for example, fire that first 6 rounds of such a tank as tAP shots, and then especially if the last AP shot registered a kill (despite how many kills there were before that) fire a couple of HE shots at something. in that sense it would use up the AP ammo in the 70exp rate, but with much more accuracy, and then a small HE bonus in comparison.

Despite my fixation for firing as soon as I think my rounds can possibly penetrate I almost never will fire the last main gun shot off at such targets. The thought is that doing such would often be a waste. It will probably re-target to something else anyway during the AI turn, and that allows one more reactive shot for whatever good that's worth. The last main gun shot being used on a new target, if it should be used, is probably better off being saved for reaction or to slow an infantry unit. There's little ways in incidents such as those to save AP ammo (though it being fired in reaction would still tally one more round used). I'm sure quite a number of people wait till they see the whites in their eyes strategy, which of course would often save rounds. Of course the ultimate way to save heavy re-supply needs is to have more units destroyed (your own). You hit more accurately and destructively you save ammo, you get hit more accurately and destructively there's less for the ammo truck to do too.

It's this pansying around with commanders saying "nyah nyah" as they stick their tongues out, because neither side is causing destruction that is the real problem. Of course, not firiing achieves the same thing.

I wonder if anybody has ever gone through the ludicrous extreme of having destroyed the entire enemy force, and they had won having only one unit left themselves (talking originally both forces being sizeable)?

Re: Operational Discussion
 

I confused the issue here with a mistake, by saying platoon instead of company. All of my armor is protected by four SPAAs as well as they can protect them. SPAAs protecting infantry will still shoot at anything that comes into range, so just because the other four SPAAs escort tracked infantry doesn't mean they still don't protect the tanks. The reverse is true also.

Just for sake of clarity and agreement, yes dismounted infantry is safer than being in tracks, open topped or not. If the battle threat was that one dimensional, life would be much easier. There are concerns about artillery and small arms fire to consider as well and they occur more often than air strikes. Now, you may have your game set so air strikes happen every battle. If that is the case, we are talking two very different situations.

The unrealism aspect is in the game model and not reality. I know troops rode on tanks and have done it myself. If the only choice you have in your game is to ride, then by all means do it. I've done it in my game, but it's been more the exception than the rule. Typically, if I have no tracks close by and a leg unit has been blasted to bits and is almost done, I will use whatever I have to ride it quickly to a safe spot to save it. Tanks have served this purpose before when not involved in a fire fight. From the game perspective, it seems like you have just as much of a chance of surviving small arms fire on a tank as you would in a half-track. That just defies logic. If someone was shooting at you, would you want to be IN the armored box, even if the top is open, or ON it?

With respect to open topped vehicles, half-track or otherwise, you don't need AP to kill them if you get a top hit. FBs with HE can do it. An infantry squad on a hill firing down into it can do it. I've destroyed half-tracks with rifles this way. AP is only needed if you need significant armor penetration. Larger HE rounds can penetrate armor as well. A FB with HE rounds, it really would depend on the size of the round. You might still get penetration out of a 30mm HE round. I don't know for sure without checking.


In the manner you use them, they may be. The way I use them, they are useful. A general rule if thumb I use is, if they (any unit type) die all the time, they ARE useless. I ask you this, what is the penalty of having a non-combatant in your core? Does it take experience from a unit that would otherwise deserve it? If it does, you would have to prove it and I don't think there is any way to do so unless Andy or Don can confirm it one way or another. Your core is small enough that it's not taking up space that another unit would use. If you want the other combatant, just add it. Would your core be less deadly because of an ammo truck in it? No. If it was 100 tanks or 100 tanks and an ammo truck, you still have 100 tanks, no matter how you slice it. The ammo truck doesn't dull the effectiveness of your blade. It's just personal preference.

True, but with more experience, the AI will get more forces. You will have more targets to engage and consequently use more ammo. I don't know if it balances out or not. Your experience is such that you fire twice as fast and are twice as accurate, but face twice as many targets. If that's how it works, it balances out. Now, if you fire twice as fast and are only 50% more accurate, but still have twice as many targets, it won't balance. Unless you want to spend a lot of time testing it, you just have to get a feel for how it works. The Tiger isn't a good example in this case anyhow because they have a lot of ammo.

Re: Operational Discussion
 

RERomine:
Mistake, okay. Place your AA as you please, but I'm telling you it's being wasted that way; true, it's not completely useless for protecting the tanks, but it could be a LOT more useful for protecting those AFV's. So while my early HT's seem to have pathetic AA ability, I'm not so sure you think that of yours. It's so pathetic that I easily forget that's not just a typical MG on there. So, if it's true you think you really gain anything in that way with those AA's, shouldn't that be sufficient, particularly for advances for infantry AA?
Well it isn't me that is protecting infantry with AA. I'm not sure how I got it anymore, but you did seem awfully concerned about HT's protecting infantry from air and arti strikes. Naturally, I told you how HT's have no worries from strikes pretty much, but more worries if laden. As far as air strike regularity, I don't know, I'm going default with everything but the map and my force size (increased 10% over the default). My meeting engagement had 4 air wings available, if I wanted, against Poland. The AI can go really hogwild with AA at times, so I certainly wouldn't increase AI air beyond the default.
Yes... but the tank typically has thicker armor (irrepective of how the game uses this) so "some" of the men, the minority anyway, would be protected by the turret. OTOH, anything, whether it hit the HT or not, that sounded ominuous, often would be enough to get the guys to bolt out. So while some of the riders of the tank might realize that angle of direct fire from the attacker, and therefore jump off (though some would jump off regardless) there are some if the squad commander would allow it, to be protected by the turret.

IOW, in one case there is no confidence in the protection of one, while the other in a limited degree would do the opposite. The difference is even more profound if we were talking the entire vehicle. Other than the tank possibly exploding, the tank, even if fairly thin-skinned, can provide really good direct-fire protection, though it obviously would be better on the ground than behind the turret. The HT on the other, is almost just as vulnerable to cause direct-fire harm to the passengers, whether they're in the HT or hiding behind it. It's just that undependable. It also is probably a given that the soldiers are more likely to stick close to the tank, whereas with the HT they are more likely to scatter from it. Naturally, if the HT has some respectable gun, say a 75mm, they could be more prone to hang closer.

Maybe the former treatment of riders (and who knows about the current treatment?) was to justify the fact that soldiers could hide behind many tanks relatively safely and that's why the losses to both AFV passengers looked the same. As well, there might had been a rider-friendly element of users who pushed and made some sense for riders not to suffer too greatly? I wouldn't say it was that protection by the frame of the tank was really used a great deal, but it wan't ignored either. As the game is set up, there is no way a squad can be protected by a tank hull, even in the same hex, so maybe that was another reason to move towards what is arguably too much protection of riders. The problem becomes more difficult if we are talking about direct HE fire on a ridered tank.

Oh yes, about the HT taking a top hit. I think part of what I was saying was that even if the HT were hit elsewhere, the FB's would cook it, due to the side armor being so weak too, and as you point out, some of the HE rounds could do that too. Of course I was talking about FB's because as I was explaining I was thinking for some reason the AI wouldn't even bother with ordinary fighters, but even ordinary fighters, should I see them only on a support screen, without looking indepth, might seem to my eyes to just have junky HE rounds, when in fact they may not.
Having made that comment, you may now agree that you didn't take me in context, because otherwise you wouldn't be telling me now how useful ammo trucks are in core. Remember where that comment came, my statement was that they were much better used in support, because of any of the numerous reasons I gave, not the least of which from having no worthwhile benefit to the same unit being in support, due to experience neing gained in core could be going to a unit that could use it. naturally, you're Mr. Support, so you have to protect it from the likes of ammo trucks. So the proposition from me wasn't that they were totally useless, as you seem to make out (because I use them improperly allegedly) but that in terms of what you gain from a core unit, they were. Even a truck, another unit I rail against having incore is more useful there, because they "might" survive a hit to some degree. If I thought them truly useless, why would i have them. Let's be more precise here. They're a "waste" in core, but sometimes necessary in support.

We have been though all of this before and I already made it quite clear I thought. For some reason you feel your force lacks so much versatility, as I see it, that you are desparate to protect that support total. A lot more versatility comes when you have total combatants and not lame trucks as par of that core, but go ahead, don't believe me. And I already told you what I do with support, as I'm probably not even using half of it, as in my case I consider the totals available there somewhat embarassing. Adding a whole 33% to my force through support? Just disgusting. Well that's one way to over-protect a core anyway, that your support soaks up most of the fire. I'm not saying you do it for that purpose (lack of versatility you recall) but many have, probably including myself at some part of the distant past. Or perhaps people like innumerable air wings, or perhaps people like tons of easy arti; the excesses can be endless.

Let me see if I can make it plainer to you. You only add to the core when you're unsatisfied with it. For example, I contemplate I might add a pnzrshrk section when they are available. For now, my army isn't versatile enough without a decent bazooka type unit in core. At present there is one ATR, but they're pretty useles for the time being, but coming with the SS platoon I have I had no choice and still get SS. So how does you core's "fighting" versatility increase, by buying what is just as good in support? Go to battle two, no better are your ammo trucks. I buy them in support in both the first and second battle, and they're the same as yours.

The only "slight" advantage to ammo trucks I could see, and this could go for any unit, was if I could buy them singularly in core (assuming I wanted an odd amount of them, like one), but only by twos (as they are now) in support. Therefore I would have to spend less overall on ammo trucks to have them in core. Every turn they would cost me 27pts. instead of 54. Because while I despise having non-combatants in core, I also am aware that the enemy gets the same amount of points against me whereever I buy them. So my overall versatility would "possibly" improve, if I thought (and I'm real close to thinking that in '39), that I'm beter off facing 27pts. less of enemy by having only one ammo truck overall. It would ruin my ethos of only combatants in core, but it would possibly make me overall more effective in that I wouldn't have an extra truck for me that has often been a waste. As we know, the game doesn't allow different formations of the same thing being different between core and support, so it's a moot point anyway. In a sense, that 'is' possible, but there's one place, and one place alone that can occur, and I have already passed it. That is, when you intially pick you core, because I could had picked an ammo truck section with only 27pts left, thereby giving me only one of them total. Weeellll, I guess I will get by with what will sometimes be an extra one.
I think the Tiger FT armor is way too low, but we seem to keep getting that with every wargame anymore. Allied players ***** about the bogeyman Gerry player who unmercifully subjects them to a whole screenload of those unfair beasts! It will be editor for me come Tiger time, and when I play an allied nation, it will stay like I initially changed it to.

Re: Tiger
 

I think the Tiger FT armor is way too low, but we seem to keep getting that with every wargame anymore. Allied players ***** about the bogeyman Gerry player who unmercifully subjects them to a whole screenload of those unfair beasts! It will be editor for me come Tiger time, and when I play an allied nation, it will stay like I initially changed it to.

From memory the Tiger is easy as it has a virtualy flat profile for most of it 10 degrees off vetical or something like. Also Allies tested it the armour quality was very good for its day one of the factors that made it so expensive to make. Brinell hardness of about 265 I think, good quality roled plate immune to shatter cracking whatever you want to call it.

Why do I remember stuff like this rather than important stuff:doh:
As a thought if every wargame puts it at that to low setting the concensous seems to be its the right one.

Re: Operational Discussion
 

Yeah, well consensus if often pretty ignorant. Look at nazi Germany for example. Also look at the consensus that gave Hitler his edge in other nations, where they were cowardly enough to give away a nation to him, in order to stop a war.

I didn't make the comment to start a "fight for the Tiger" war, it was only checking to see if anyone was aware of it as I was. RERomine, playing Gerry, might be willing to see that point of view.

Oh BTW, Imp, for the sake of the pristine nature that consensus seems to have with you. If you had played Panzer Strike, Kampfgruppe, SP1, SPIII, SPWAW, to name a few, you would know the consensus was for the historic Tiger when SPWAW, the latest of those games, came out. So which consensus is right?

Re: Operational Discussion
 

I actualy gave you the info so you could make a good guestimate if you disagree.
If look up thickness then add a bit for hardness (about 15-20% better than comparable British stuff for the time) you have your answer. As its only slightly off vertical could probably ignore slope calculation.
The hardest part of the info to find tends to be the Brinell rating (toughness) which might give it +1 on the armour rating if not factored in.

Re: Operational Discussion
 

I don't quite know why I am bothering here but it may intrest you.
I have never looked at the models before but checked a few.
IIIj IIIL PantherG Tiger
The game does a nice job of modeling diffrent guns both on penetration & accuracy the Panthers gun being top dog & is in fact more accurate than most modern guns having a long barrel & high velocity. German engineering.
I would say the Tiger armour could be increased by 1 if you take mantlet (120mm)
25 degree off vertical slope of lower front hull section & quality of the plate into account.
I would have given it 13 for the front turret as mantlet Brinell rating is 280.
Also penetration levels listed for ISU-122 from Jentz (unconfirmed by me) list need to be a lot closer.
Panther & L spot on so stopped looking.

Conclusion the game is near enough right generaly if you mod it by more than that rename it because its not a Tiger anymore.

Re: Operational Discussion
 

I think the gun manlet was worth 100-120mm alone! But as it's been a while since I knew what I thought was the correct amount, I will have to pass on discussing it until the day comes that i use them or face them. It seems most people want to say that the armor of the Tiger and the KTiger were the worst instead. The KTiger it seems, was more armored but with less dependable armor. Probably still better overall than the Tiger, but if the Tiger is seriously underrated in armor then the KTiger should at least present a vicious force. I don't think I have any problem with the KTIger ratings. The blasted Panther, not an armored juggernaut exactly, actually has 2pts. more in the FT area. Just not right that 12 Tiger FT, but that's my problem alone.

Re: Operational Discussion
 

I'm sure you know well that there are better German guns than what you listed, though those are very good. Don't make the mistake of thinking the 88 on the Tiger is a real good one, because the KTiger, Nashorn, Elefant, AFV's all carry the 88L71, quite a bit better than the 88L56 of the Tiger, and quite a bit better than the 75L70 I think it is of the Panther's, JPZIVL's etc. The 88L71 combines the best punch, range, and accuracy of any gun. I guess the 128L56 is close, but isn't as accurate and the ammo is limited.

Re: Operational Discussion
 

Ignoring "best" results where the WH size adds extra (and are not there to bet the farm on) - the 88L71 and the 128kwk are both reliably producing 18 at 1400m (but both 20 at 1100, though 18 for the 88 and 20 for the 128 then till 1400) . Then the 88 starts to fall off more noticeably. So marginal over 1000, about the same under it, and real advantage to the 128 only starts at 1400.

A specialist gun for plinking Stalins at the longer ranges. I would prefer a straight Tiger 2 over Jagtigers in 97% of all cases. More stored kills.

Cheers
Andy

Re: Operational Discussion
 

Good grief yes there are better guns & I trust the game model I checked stuff I could get data for easily to check Tiger for you, Then checked its stats were in keeping with similar vehicles, they were.
If you want to push it give it 13 on both fronts but the Panther is the better tank faster accurate high penetration stronger front hull its only weakness is its not a sqaure tank like the Tiger.
The Tiger is unusual in that it has very high all round protection so if want to be gamey buy some & use on flanks.

I am not sure but I believe the Tiger was the first tank designed from the ground up as a tank killer because the Germans found a need. Probably started designing after ran into French stuff & MatildaIIs. Because it was an early design quality of parts was paramount as its a flat sided & insanely expensive tank to produce.
Then the Russians came along with the T-34 & sloping armour & design philoshpy changed for ever as the same thickness of armour is far more effective at an angle even if you ignore the increased ricochet effect, the Panther was born.

I am going to bow out of answering your posts now unless you specificaly title to me.
But if you do want help advice think before ask me your last post for instance.
Do you not think if I am looking up real life data I might just have an inkling that there are better guns out there & thats whithout defining a better gun for what exactly.

Please dont come back at me saying the Tiger was the better tank or some such unless you can justify it. From ease of use playability you do not have to worry about its flanks & thats about it.
Oh if you had to put 1 of them in a confined enviroment like urban I would choose the Tiger for its all round survivability & so as not to squaunder the Panthers FC acc

Re: Operational Discussion
 

I suppose the info you just related is history and not game data correct? Because I had no idea the game would have guns declining in accuracy at different ranges unless one had longer range than the other. IOW, all 40 range guns would lose the same percentage from the highest accuracy, if they shot at the same hex. For example two guns of 40 range, fire at hexes 20 away. They both lose perhaps 40% accuracy, despite what their accuracy rating is. The one with the higher accuracy will always fire more accuractely, but they both lose the same percentage when they have the same maximum range. A range 50 gun, would lose less of a percentage than those two at hex 20.

Re: Operational Discussion
 

I didn't ask you anything, merely pointed out what you probably already knew. You sure are testy aren't you (asked rhetorically)? And I will present data as I please, so quit trying to bully me around. Go it (asked rhetorically again)?

Re: Operational Discussion
 

Charles because this is just getting antogonistic I am not going to reply again period appologies for any grief it only started because I thought you were misleading Gila I think it was in a post ages back by saying theres only one way to play why have trucks. In fact its a strength of the game that the only thing to get right is tactics & even they should be adapted to what you have at hand. This is why letting the computer buy your stuff can be fun but I digress.

I sometimes have trouble understanding what you are saying & we just seem to be jumping from subject to subject often with vague assumptions.
At least your reply to Mobhack was on point & made sense.
Except as I said stop just keep coming back with stuff & think.

He refered to 2 diffrent guns & given what he said my summary would be the Jagtiger has the big one & is marginaly better at range because it has a longer range (maybe FC to) But in his view its not enough to offset the more limited ammo loadout.

Sorry but you just asked another question to which you probably know the answer by not reading his response to you.
Most posts are short people do not just come back with "stuff" once they have an answer. Its not a discussion group as such join a WW2 site for that but you had better get your facts in order first.

His facts could indeed be based on real life, the game or indeed both & bearing in mind he is one of the games designers which do you think it might be.


Enjoy the game
Life is short! Break the rules! Forgive quickly! Kiss slowly!
Love truly, Laugh uncontrollably
And never never regret anything that made you smile

John over & out

Re: Operational Discussion
 

Imp: What is this thread called? I think the forums are to discuss the game. Do you see me talking about my personal life? Do you recall RERomine started it because the ammo truck thread got too sidetracked? Since RERomine and I were the last conversing on that thread, and you keep saying that you're going to butt out, and do not (not that anybody asked you to butt out) and this thread was set up to handle the sidetrack, and it says "discussion" up there, just what is your problem? To harangue me? Look up at the very top of this page, not the name of the thread, but the words under .com.unity. Do those words sound any more discouraging of discussion than the name of this thread? No matter if you like the direction I go, or go lock-step to your ways, it's still a GAME discussion.

I don't mind talking to you, but you got to stop being bossy and become more aware of what appears to be the purpose of these forums. I don't see any of the mods dressing me down, though they were concerned that I played a part in sidetracking the ammo truck thread (not because of my ammo truck discussion, but because it went off in other directions too much, but they still didn't say anything to me). "THIS" thread was made to cover that sidetrack and it's still 100% about the game. This thread is a lot more open, as 'operational' covers a lot more ground than 'ammo truck'.

If you still don't understand us being allowed to discuss as we have (with sidetracking being somewhat a stain, but not in this thread, until you started policing me that is) look at the AAR's and tell me what that has to do with 'discussion' or 'asking questions' (interesting how before you were giving me problems for asking questions) or whatever you keep condemning? Do you see me or anyone else telling people these forums aren't for discussion, or asking questions, or trying to bully people around (though you have seemed to make I guess a bullying charge when you claim I said something had to be only one way) when you're not even the mod? I've seen these mods in action before, they have no qualms about stating their mind if need be, and they're not absent from it very much, so I doubt they need you policing it. Now, if you want to put your foot in your mouth again, feel free, but my ears will start to become more and more closed to you (not that they have been yet).

Re: Operational Discussion
 

Okay I can see I should have clarified the Panther gun is top dog out of the 4 tanks I looked at not the top dog gun bar none. So reacting with grief was a bit extreme
Anyway I am gone

Re: Operational Discussion
 

Oh my goodnes Andy was talking about the game! I don't know how I didn't see it before, and for some reason I thought he was talking about guns with the same range. If my choice is between a gun with 50 AP rounds and one with 20, and their peformance is quite similar, especially against all but the super tank, as indeed the 88L71 is, then the 88 is my choice. Good to have an 128 or two for the uber-tanks though. Apparently Andy's thoughts exactly.

Does anybody know what range a gun's accuracy is stated for? The mid-range for the gun? I always thought (a guess) it was a muliple in a formula, such that the stated accuracy was that gun at range zero, but with what Andy did I don't think that's the case anymore.