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.