How do I use ammo trucks?

[runequester]

Thanks guys.

[Charles22]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Happy hunting.

[RERomine]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Charles22]

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

You've got a Defend battle and 500 support points, what do you do? Spend 50 on ammo trucks?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[gila]

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

[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.

[RERomine]

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

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

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

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

[Imp]

It all depends on the player & has pros & cons

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[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.

[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.