How do I use ammo trucks?

[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.

[Imp]

Well Charles you are fixed in your ways & you said yourself you do not play challenging games. "Against the Poles I always get decisive victories & consider 5 tanks a loss"

Nuff said & may you continue to have many more as thats what floats your boat.

[Charles22]

Originally Posted by Imp

Well Charles you are fixed in your ways & you said yourself you do not play challenging games. "Against the Poles I always get decisive victories & consider 5 tanks a loss"

Nuff said & may you continue to have many more as thats what floats your boat.

Boy, you sure do keep getting me wrong. Now you may not consider losing 5 tanks something of a losing effort, but I was talking about the Poles afterall. Adjustment to what you expect from a battle, or didn't you understand that? Take those same 5 tank losses, that's a great victory when going against a superior foe ('41 USSR for example), but when facing a much weaker opponent, oh say Poland, 5 tank losses I often find as just plain unacceptable. The same loses against different enemies can have extremely different reactions on the player; not just me. The score may be the same in the end, but losses to inferior foes hurt more keenly, just like the Lions shouldn't be getting 500 total yards against the Steelers. It's often an indication of sloppy play to have the same losses to an inferior enemy as to a stronger enemy.

Of course there is the possibility that somehow we play beyond our normal abilities against stronger opponents, but when one sees a pattern over time, and has fought Poland so much it has made his eyes bleed, then yeah, he ought to know what are acceptable losses for his playing style and what are not. If you even think for a minute that Poland is tough, wait till you see the USSR. The USSR may rout more easily than Poland (not sure) but she sure has much better units.

[RERomine]

Keep in mind that the game level sets a lot of stuff. During the war, the Germans beat the Poles with superior tactics, better training and organization. The game on the other hand, balances a lot of things. If you have a more experienced force, the AI gets more points to spend. It is possible to have Polish aircraft show up that was rare during the war. The AI artillery seems to have a super natural ability to drop on units that should otherwise be hidden. The Polish guns in 1939 were very capable of defeating German tanks of the day. Losing five tanks is quite capable of happening.

Now that my core has Panthers and Tigers, like yours, I don't lose tanks as much, but I still lose them. There is nothing careless about having a 155mm round or a 500lbs bomb drop on a turret. In battle, units are destroyed. Losing a Tiger with 100 kills hurts much more than losing a mark IIb with none, but it's just something that happens. When it does, you continue the mission.

[Imp]

Here is a link to my AAR versus the Poles & ongoing battles vs the French
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=41834

It lists my core as entered France has ammo as well not listed & had no HTs for use in Poland. Do not buy transport with support.

AI recieves 130% of my forces repair is -10% (might be 120%)
If I remember correctly got a marginal victory & 2 decisive vs Poles

Note things you probably will not do.
Half my arty is short ranged stuff that I have to move to keep up with the advance as did not get the luxury of having all nice gear.
HTs coming on line slowly will not be getting more for a while
No 88s allowed till later, might get 2 with support if defending & map looks bad.
So I am trying to fight French armour with infantry because tanks dont cut the mustard.

But what did you do if the AI got your 88s?
Can you still take these out & the Matildas & KV's I still face if you lose them?

The river crossing is an exeption as have additional ground well air forces in FJs, otherwise engineers for mines but now have 2 platoons in core so dont need.
Possibly the odd bunker & ATG on defence as used for that purpose but no sacrificial lambs.
River crosssing also a rare instance where I used most of my support points as they are a hard operation to pull off.

I think the diffrence between us is our view of what represents a challenge.
You are replaying the same format you have already won at rather than trying the next level.
I actualy state the first battles were not much of a problem but I am now working hard to achieve victory which in my book is a good thing.

[Charles22]

RERomine: I was going to respond to you paragraph by paragraph, with some minor comments, but my blasted post got deleted somehow. At least up to paragraph 6 it's apparent we are understanding what we are trying to say much more clearly. I'll start a 7 therefore with this post.

P7: in the deleted post, I mentioned that most people, I think, don't know the subtle differences between HT's, AC's (armored cars) and light tanks. In Gerry's case, they usally don't find that at least one of the early GE AC's has better hitting ability than the HT, because it has a range finder and fire control that the Ht doesn't have, even if they have the same guns. Even if the HT couldn't load units, it's still not a bad fighting choice in comparison simply because it's so cheap. The AC is better for when you have to hit right away. I mention this because of your Tiger considerations of ammo loads; anothe rthing which can be easily overlooked. In my case the PZIVB is mt AP punch workhorse, but since it has only 20 rounds and isn't the most accurate thing, the PZIIIb/d I think it is, solves both problems quite well, as it has both a high AP ammo rate and more accuracy. Getting nothing but Nashorns in the later game may look awfully pretty (and risky), but that ammo is gone very quick.

(still P7) Amazing 240 Ht's! I have played this game for so long when you were limited to like 300 units, that this is truly unbeleivable. I have seen some hordes when compared to the force I had. I think some games used to allow 5X your defending force in assaults and I bumped into that situation a few times. even with my usual 90-110 core units, smaller than your own core, I was in awe. On the subject of artillery, however, even with my less mobilr force, especially on attack misisons I usually don't have that much problems with them, partly due to the AI times of bombarding me where I'm not (not necessarily because I moved). the way I look at it, I have played the same AI opponent enough, that I can usually teel when the arti is coming after the intital strikes. I just have a feel for it. I don't nother moving anything for the sake of 75mm arti, but 100mm or better gets me more interested in moving. Attacks are almost constantly moving anyway, and what is not moving, should it get attacked at that time, is very foten in cover anyway, so they really have to open up with the big ones to shift me as far as infnatry are concerned. Now, another thing. Do you reserve any core arti for counter-battery fire? I do so with those early GE 100mm 214 hex ranged ones. They can counter virtually any off-map bombardments but until they get very experienced I think their response is often undependable. I also counter onboard arti, of course, by my own onboard, or possibly by those 100mm's. I do a much better job at this than the AI. Part of it, I think, ahs to do with the AI thinking he can hit my infantry he's spotted, so they soak up a lot of what would otherwise could be counter-battery to my onboard arti. His 75mm onboard, or indeed mortars, against so many of my infantry is fairly useless, since so many prove relatively invulnerable when in good cover. My only real worry comes from AFV's getting suppressed by a lot of collatural hits or of course for the much larger guns against most anything. My first Polish battle saw me lose only 3 AFV's and only 65 men, so it couldn't get much better than that for losses; even to a weaker nation.

P8. 23 tank killing guns? What would these be, all AFV's? Because you seemed to make the point before that ATG's weren't your bag anymore. About aerial recon. i'm not too keen against it, and it is new for mesomewhat so I am at least still playing around with it, but so far no matter how much I've improved with them they are still getting shot down each and every time. And this isn't the AA-happy '45 units I'm going against either. I primarily like to pick aerial attack units in the form of fighter bombers. Not only are they pretty insusceptible to being shot down when used wisely (unlike the Storch) but they have multiple passes, each pass producing a more reduced form of recon, and with weapons that not only can be armor-piercing, but fire om those multiple passes (though AP ammo is more limited). It's not exactly a key element, but you have to remember that one top hit, probably the most likely hit for fighter bombers, often means a heavily damaged AFV. I get real tired of enemy air raking my AFS's. BTW, for those who don't know it, I guarantee the AI does far better then the human in attacking ground units through the air. I don't think they are as keen though on taking paths unlikely to have enemy AA assets. So I pick an air asset a good deal of the time, hoping they can nail a T34 or two for each battle over the course of the early invasion (even a T34 immobilization is largely a victory). It's also something for diversion's sake. It seems really stupid to see the AI rake my AFV's badly at times, and then for me not to even consider trying to match that.

(still P8) I would like you to consider an adjustment to your defensive HT's. I've alrady made more suggestions more radical to your viewpoint on what to do with them (not have them ), but here's something more mild to digest. How's about compromising my strategy with my HT's, and yours? IOW, Ht's often are attacking in limited circumstances, defensive battle or not. You mentioned their AA assets. Ho wmuch use are those asests at the ned of the map. Maybe they knock out a plane starting from your rear. I don't know why the AI would start precisely where his places a lot of his AA assets, but I digress. Why not still have them still to the rear somewhat, but not the rear of the map? IOW, I think the AA is better used when to the rear of some of your fighting units. Place them 10-20 hexes behind your AFV's or something similar on defensive missions, I bet the planes you shoot down will go up significantly. As battlefiled intelligence goes partly due to my Storch inadequacies, I often play some of the map blind, so that adds a little more to my excitement. Most of my intelligence, somewhat spotty though it may be, comes largely by more dependable ground units. Foot scouts on an AFV perhaps. Walk to the lead trees and spot while they can, then go back to the AFv, the enemy usually being none the wiser and the scouts not being interfered with; mostly due to good timing. Naturally holding some key areas, by any unit, eliminates the need for much recon there. Again, we're not talking about defending against looney human players here, who would probably just do things that were impractical or even impossible to do, such as squeezing a ton of units into one hex, so the enemy might mistake it as a platoon or smaller. Yeah, you might need more severe recon against human players, but who would want to play somebody who did gamey stuff like that?

(last paragraph) I have the notion that you do not really know just how vulnerable AFV riders are. I use them because I use them wisely. The definition of wise being that they are not fired upon in that situation. I can't say it doesn't happen entirely, and I hate the losses should it come, but as I don't know how realistic the losses are, I'm pretty sure, one who doesn't use them knows far less still. What more reason do I have to say that even I do not know? Because the latest patch changed that supposedly; they're more vulnerable now. So if I were you, thinking as you do, I doubt I would change mid-stream ousting a lot of HT's (I thought you were beginning a new campaign with the latest patch, as I did - just a hunch) to start a serious AFV effort to carry my SS, but do know it is not as it once was. OTOH, though I have done quite a few AFV infantry riders sinc ethe latest pacth, not one of them has been fried upon while there, so I cannot tell you the losses. The only thing that came close was I had a sniper on an AFV and he disappeared from bombardment raining nearby a full throttled march. Being a one man unit, that doesn't help matters any, as most riders I have seen on the old versions lost at least a man

Hmmm, now you're saying you're into some ATG use again. Didn't you say they were useless as far as you're concerned? Must had been that offensive mindset describing their uselessness, while what's left of a defensive mindset decided to grab them for support on defensive missions, right?

BTW, what do you think of Brandenburgers? I'm talking the full squad ones, not the recon? They're a nice novelty for me and are my infantry elites and have a platoon of them. They're sort of my Steiner outfit and I like their having two LMG's. I go for the satchel charges over the sniper rifle though.

I only have one platoon of SS myself. They're not too impressive to start with, as most of them don't come with the MG34 LMG.

[RERomine]

You misunderstood on one aspect. When I said 240+ that was a combination of tanks, armored cars and half-tracks and not just 240+ half-tracks. The mission was a delay. It was a high visibility desert battle. Unfortunately, the conditions generated dust. I really could only see lead units and a massive cloud of dust behind them. This allowed them to get closer than I would have liked. I destroyed units I could see up front, but in the cloud of dust, there were lots of other units. To make things worse the AI forces, British in this case, were using half-tracks. It was bad for two reason. The first is they were able to keep up with the advancing tanks. Usually, tanks will out run advancing trucks allowing me to dispatch the force is phases. There are riders on the tanks, but the AI almost always seems to do that. The other problem was half-tracks are armored, meaning I had to use AP rounds to destroy them. Terrain was such that there was a lot of rough ground and soft sand, making lateral shifting of me units a timely process. Infantry at this point, mid 1942 I believe, didn't have much in the way of infantry AT weapons. All the heavy work had to be done by 17 PzKw IVf2 tanks, 6 StuG IIIf assault guns, 6 50mm ATGs and 6 75mm ATGs. The ammo situation got so bad I was engaging targets with direct fire from my 6 SPAs and 6 recon tracks mounting 37mm guns. At the end of the battle, my center and right flank elements only had HE left with the exception of one 75mm ATG. I was starting to pull tanks off the line to head for resupply in the center and right, hoping my infantry would by me time. Units on the now quiet left flank were shifting, but I figured it would take 5 turns for them to get there. Then, for some reason, the AI just quit. I did an AAR on the this battle.

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=41277

The thing about the number of units you can have, the limit a player can pick is 300. An additional 200 are slotted for support use in situations such as beach landings to account for landing craft that are automatically added. All told, you can have 500 maximum. Since the AI force is completely under its control, it can go up to 500 units.

The 23 tank killing guns would be my AFVs. There are 17 Panthers and 6 Tigers. I've actually got 7 tracks with 37mm guns also and one with a 75mm howitzer, but those aren't intended to slug it out with tanks. The can handle the odd armored car just fine however. I use to have ATGs, tank destroyers and assault guns, but got rid of them. My 6 StuGs were upgraded to Tiger Is, while my 6 75mm ATGs went to Elefants and then they were deleted. With their experience, the Elefants were over 200pts each. In a defend mission, the AI attacks with a 5:2 ratio of points, so my Elefants and their six 88mm guns gave the AI an additional 3,000 points to use to purchase units. Six guns just weren't worth it. If I had to destroy KV-1s maybe, but they weren't needed to kill Shermans.

The funny thing about that last defend battle where all my tracks were on the back row, visibility was 20. I didn't expect the AI to have aircraft. My rational was if they didn't have aircraft, artillery would be very heavy and I wanted to keep the tracks away from it. Artillery usually doesn't hit the back row. It was heavy, but a dozen aircraft made it rougher. Smoke from burning trees, vehicles and artillery strikes made visibility very difficult. I had to hit the "clear" button just to find my own units in that mess, but the aircraft still found targets. Only once did it attack one of their own. What you suggested about keeping them about 10-20 hexes behind the AFVs wouldn't have been practical in this case. That would have put them behind some very large hills and in the middle of the woods. There are instances where the suggestion would have merit, however. This position wasn't ideal for defending, but it was what I had to do and I've seen worse.

One thing I was wrong about in my core is I have eight SPAA units, four sections and not two. When my force is on the move, one section goes with each SS infantry company and the remaining two sections stay with the armor. In that battle, defend I mentioned above, two sections were deployed on each flank and roughly 15 hexes behind the main line. Their purpose was to intercept any fast moving enemy units that got through on the flanks as aircraft weren't expected. I would have had them more centered if I had anticipated aircraft.

My scouts ride, but I have dedicated transport for that purpose. I have 6 scouts and 6 recon tracks. The recon tracks run the forward, unload them and stay close for support. I usually delay any advances I make about three or four turns to allow the scouts to get out and check the route out before the rest of the core gets there. They typically have spotted the AI line before the column gets there. Spotter aircraft help in this aspect, if they are available. Scouts on the ground are better, but take more time and there are places they can't get to as easily. Sometimes I use them as fighting scouts. They have panzerfausts now and are deadly to AI tanks who move in confined terrain without infantry support. The best option is using both ground scouts and a spotter plane. From a realism perspective, I only take one spotter plane if I can get one at all. One other thing I've done with scouts is air dropped them behind enemy lines. The transport pops in from the back edge quickly and drops them before AI AAA units can respond. Once the scouts are out, I don't really care what happens to the transport since I won't see it again. I do try to keep if from getting shot down, but I don't have any heartburn if it happens. It's a very handy tactic on assault missions, if air transports are available.

I might revisit the tank rider idea. It just seemed to me that a squad draped all over the top of a tank should take heavy casualties if someone opens up with a machine gun. That never seemed to happen. I do prefer having my infantry in tracks, however. That allows them to perform their tasks without altering the task of the tanks. It's not much, but my transport tracks average one kill each, but this doesn't account for the suppression they put on AI infantry before their squad dismounts and really lays into them. The game only counts kills and not assists

The ATGs are purchased out of support points for delays missions. I use to have them in my core, but early war German battles tended to be more offensive in nature. Early on, if I had a mission they weren't good for, I deployed them in an overwatch position. If the AI launched a spoiling attack, they could stop it. Unfortunately, AI artillery would start clobbering them if it didn't have anything better to hit. Then I started bringing them with my core as it advanced. The guns would be deployed to cover objectives captured. This ended up not being that useful because there rarely were any AI units in the area to defend against. That's when I upgraded to the Elefants and I already explained what I did with those. I wasn't happy with Marders either because of their ammo payload. With the tanks I had, I eventually decided I just didn't need them except for in special situations. My core doesn't have anything that isn't useful most of the time. It doesn't have to kill, it just has to be useful. When I do have a delay, I go with the 50mm ATG. It's a small and relatively inexpensive gun. It can't kill heavy tanks, but I have Tigers and Panthers for that role. The 50mm will easily handle half-tracks, armored cars and light and medium tanks. Being that they are small, the target can get into effective range without spotting the gun. It's really a nice little gun.

I don't think I've used Brandenburgers in WinSPWW2, but I used the equivalent in SPWaW. They were real handy in the infiltration mode to put eyes behind the enemy lines. I used them in a PBEM game in SPWaW and managed to get a few SPAs that way. In WinSPWW2, I really haven't looked at them closely, so I don't have a useful opinion.

One thing you mentioned has me thinking now. I haven't restarted my campaign, but I'm running both the patched (3.5) and unpatched (3.0) versions of the game right now. That's because I have a PBEM game in progress with the unpatched version. Until that game is complete, I need to keep the unpatched version running.

You did mention earlier you are playing on a 200x140 map. One thing to think about here is on defend missions, the AI isn't as effective if it can't cover it's whole front. I ran a series of tests on 100x100 maps, which are what I use, where I had the AI assault the AI. It was the tested on the same map each time, with the assaulting and defending nation being 6/44 Germany. The assault to defend ration was 5:2 in both cases. Basically, I ran two models. The light model was defender 2,000 points and the assault force 5,000 points. Here the defender lost 67% of the time. In the heavy model, the defending force has 6,000 points and the assault force 15,000. In this case, the defending force won 80% of the time. Near as I can figure, if the defending AI can't get it's border to border minefield built, it doesn't stand much of a chance, even against itself. The point is, on the large map your intent may be to make things more challenging for you, but it would seem to handicap the AI in defend mission. It's only a possibility that it could handicap it. The assaulting AI finds mine fields by running over them with their tanks, over and over and over again! Leaving 20% of the assault force burning on the mines could also explain why the assault force lost. A person obviously wouldn't do that. As for all the others, I don't know. This was done to try to find the perfect balance between assaulting and defending forces. I just thought I would mention that for consideration.

On a similar note, I did try defending against at AI assault at 6:1 odds (defending 4,000 points, assaulting 24,000 points). That was a challenge. My defending force was almost completely wiped out, but I pulled a draw out of it. I inflicted enough casualties on the AI I got the draw even though I lost all the flags. There were a few things I could have done differently that might have even allowed me to win. If you want a challenge, you should try that.

[Imp]

Be careful revisiting riders since the patch they should only be used to reach the frontline or in a must need situation.
Watch the effects if hit them now especially with a MMG its worth hosing down to see if it has a rider, certainly if grouped together so splash damage hits several.

A tall map does tend to spread the AI if it does not have the forces to cover allowing the human player to easily gain local force superiority & pick off.
Now I think about it in a campaign if you adjust the map size for battle types it will make for a better battle.

AI defending > shrink height so a more dense frontage with less ways to exploit.

AI attacking > shrink width so has to travel less & so maintains unit cohesion better.
Stop fast stuff racing ahead to much.

[Charles22]

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.