Realism vs "Winning"

[pdoktar]

I don´t strive for "realistic" forces. It´s a game after all. The best part is to spend an hour (or two) thinking what to buy, what kind of companies with what possible support weapons to make, create battlegroups of tanks and infantry, is this machinegun better at its job than that one, do I wish to use mortars in direct fire suppot etc etc.

We have to remember that the cost calculator compensates for supertanks and weapons. One tank can´t be in more than one place at a time. I prefer heavy armor, because when I need their firepower, they have to be the best available to be able to nullify serious head-on threats. Tanks for me are meant to take the enemy head-on. Infantry and artillery can deal with lesser threats with some PAK or something. If I can´t match the enemy´s tank power, I´ll have to use tactics and ambushes. This sometimes feels like cheating against the AI, as it walks straight into one.

I just love buying my own force structure from the ground up. Then it is MY force, not somebody elses.

[PanzerBob]

pdoktar said:
I don´t strive for "realistic" forces. It´s a game after all. The best part is to spend an hour (or two) thinking what to buy, what kind of companies with what possible support weapons to make, create battlegroups of tanks and infantry, is this machinegun better at its job than that one, do I wish to use mortars in direct fire suppot etc etc.

We have to remember that the cost calculator compensates for supertanks and weapons. One tank can´t be in more than one place at a time. I prefer heavy armor, because when I need their firepower, they have to be the best available to be able to nullify serious head-on threats. Tanks for me are meant to take the enemy head-on. Infantry and artillery can deal with lesser threats with some PAK or something. If I can´t match the enemy´s tank power, I´ll have to use tactics and ambushes. This sometimes feels like cheating against the AI, as it walks straight into one.

I just love buying my own force structure from the ground up. Then it is MY force, not somebody elses.

Amen to all that, Pdoktar.

That's why I play campaigns, and have been since learning the game many years ago. I recruit my KG's/BG's/TF's and treat them like I'm an old and trusted CO.

Cheers, PanzerBob out.

[PatG]

pdoktar said:
I don´t strive for "realistic" forces. It´s a game after all. The best part is to spend an hour (or two) thinking what to buy, what kind of companies with what possible support weapons to make, create battlegroups of tanks and infantry, is this machinegun better at its job than that one, do I wish to use mortars in direct fire suppot etc etc.
....
I just love buying my own force structure from the ground up. Then it is MY force, not somebody elses.

Fair enough - my "game" is to play with reasonably limited kit or under appreciated forces.

To stretch your point completely out of shape, why not take only Tigers and snipers?

[blitzkreig]

It is fun to play with all the shiny best kit but I'm in the realism school of thought. To have any real chance of sucess even against the AI you need a balanced force. Big Tanks with massive guns and armour will still get creamed by trained infantry if in urban areas and forest.

Happy Gaming!

[pdoktar]

Don´t take them into forests and towns..
That´s what the grunts are for, maybe a Tiger 500-800meters behind the main grunt line ina town, closing the road from enemy vehicles..?

And PatG, I hate enemy snipers, and they can´t still do good things like close assault effectively and keep positions in 1 hex range.