Infantry - What Do You pick?

[m113apc]

I prefer crack hardcore units like I mentioned earlier, but I can see the enjoyment in having units of mixed standard, like your hardcore units in the frontline, and some more inexperienced units as support, or security.

But I compensate having my SS or Brandenburgers (ore other hardcore units as FJ, or GB) to the lack of numbers.
My enemy always has more of everything.

For me, that’s the edge .

What’s important here is the fun factor.
If your thing is to have 3 coys of Tiger II tanks against 10 coys of early Sherman’s just to blow thing up, that’s great .

[Charles22]

Yes, at least there's some compensation for having better troops other than the obvious. It can get to be a problem over a long haul with a VERY large force, because I was explaining to somebody some time ago, in so doing you would deny the enemy that may had used hordes tactics from doing just that, just because you may have so many units he cannot exceed your own by very much. I don't think most of us play with that large a force though, and I can only guess whather the default points would allow that to happen later on, assuming you didn't add to the core later. Perhaps the USSR is the only nation that I would venture to guess could start by filling out the default points and then have too many units for what I spoke of.

If you bother to equip the USSR that high from the beginning, you really do have a horde yourself and down the line run into the problems I anticipate. That at least can be explained away somewhat, as who could had out-horded the USSR later in the war? Germany could do it at points of attack in the first couple of years, but I would think having somewhere around 150 units or so that they could muster ingame with the default points, wouldn't be a problem until then.

When I campaign USSR, I wouldn't dream of using 3000pts. I think I'm more around 2500 when I get my general 90-110 units. If you start off in Finland instead of Poland, I think by then at least one of the KV's is available, which can soak off some points.

As far as I can remember, winSPWW2 was the first game that allowed the USSR to start a campaign in Poland; for better or worse.

[Charles22]

m113apc: There is one problem with those elite Tigers fighting those Shermans though. It's not 'just' the units themselves, but also their experience we are speaking of, of course. So while that scenario might sound not that bad, you have to remember that in terms of LC play, you are probably talking most of the Tigers being uber-elite, while the Shermans have probably half the experience, since they are AI Shermans.

[Ramm]

My idea of the best infantry squad would have the 1st weapon as "SMG"(range 2-5) 2nd weapon as "LMG" (range 10-12) 3rd weapon "LMG", 4th weapon as AT, something effective, with at least 5 range.

Cheers,

Andrew

[Charles22]

Originally Posted by Ramm

My idea of the best infantry squad would have the 1st weapon as "SMG"(range 2-5) 2nd weapon as "LMG" (range 10-12) 3rd weapon "LMG", 4th weapon as AT, something effective, with at least 5 range.

Cheers,

Andrew

I have never seen an SMG which went over range 3. The winSPWW2 rifles are quite good, and often hit even at the maximum range of 10 in the better circumstances. As far as slot 4 goes though the AT weapon being that range may be next to impossible on an actual full unit (a 2 or 6 man unit wouldn't be full). Taking the Germans for example, you have in the later war both the panzershreck and panzerfaust. The faust has only range two, while the shreck has a range of six. The problem is, I don't think you can get the shreck with a full unit. As well, the ATR of the early years is so ineffectual that it's almost worthless.

In my view slot four is almost a throwaway for anything worthwhile that is AT and ranged (though pnzrfst's only go out to range 2, they are very good). Slot four often seems just as useless when getting much good for anti-personnel purposes (though an unrated sniper rifle may still produce good results, but I don't know, having not tried them there before). In general fighting though, slot four is often not terribly necessary for anti-personnel purposes, because usually the waepons 1-3 will knock the target into a retreat, thereby eliminating slot 4 from firing that one chance. So what I find generally most useful for slot 4 would be an AT weapon of any sort. Ranged would be better, but so much of the war has to be fought with those awful ATR's that it's probably better to have a very effective close range weapon there, if possibke, that is, if you can assume that the close range AT weapon is of much use anymore, given what I said earlier about a too high fail rate.

When you think about it, having a short range weapon there, could be quite disturbing for your own side, as it seems a very easy way too pick up instant high suppression especially bad for the defensive fighting. Perhaps the studious player would be better off disabling these weapons until they're needed during the player turn where they can be rallied? It looks to me as though I'm seeing like a two-thirds failure rate or better with the starting German engineers and that's way too high to be of any use defensively. It might not be until pnzrfsts, and considerably higher experience can be found, that slot 4 is of much use in the AT role unfortunately.

[Ramm]

The weapon I was talking about was an M4 which is classed as a SMG, Thats why I said I wanted a SMG with a range of 2-5. Because I wasn't sure if the the range is just 4 or 5 and since I haven't seen an SMG with higher range thats what I put down. As for the AT slot a full squad for example can carry an RPG with range 10, happens all the time.

Lastly I'm very sorry for bothering you guys! I am an idiot! This is WWII and here I am posting like its a winSPMBT thread

Cheers,

Andrew