How do I use ammo trucks?

[Imp]

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.

[PanzerBob]

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.

Bob out

[Charles22]

Originally Posted by gila

Charles seems to have issues with other gamers preferences on using 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.

[Charles22]

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.

[Charles22]

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.

[Charles22]

Originally Posted by Imp

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.

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?

[Imp]

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?

[Charles22]

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.

[Imp]

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.

[Charles22]

Originally Posted by Imp

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.

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.