Realism vs "Winning"

[PatG]

I would like to throw out a question for discussion. Especially in campaigns - how many of you select your forces based on what is historically accurate rather that what will make winning easier? For example, taking Mk IVs instead of Panthers or A9s instead of Matildas.

Do you differentiate between core and support by getting the good kit for your boys but being more accurate when it comes to the support troops? For example, Wittmann like Tiger truppen supported by a mass of Volksgrenadiers.

I try to be historically accurate but often can't resist adding in a couple of goodies - especially after my core troops have fought well.

Just curious,

[MajorDisaster]

I must admit that when I played the old SP (Dos version) long campaign as Germans I had more Tigers by 1945 than Adolf probably did - it was getting too easy as only arty and airpower caused a problem. So this time round I'm trying hard to keep it more "real" - less tank heavy - but like you say, when you got a few 1000 points in the bank it's just soooo tempting to buy that Tiger II platoon... It definitely makes for a more challenging game to go lighter on armour (especially as germans cos their tanks are so hot) and more infantry instead. So last campaign I had maximum of 13 tank, (mostly Stug/JgdPzr) - only buying extra armour support on "advance" flavour missions. Swapped around the types a bit for variety. You only really start "needing(?)" a few panther/tiger when JSII shows up. Anyhow, I read personal accounts of German inf who never saw a Tiger... especially later in the war, Germans were so short of armour it seems too unreal to have a "superforce".

[oragus]

When I play I almost always go with the "cheaper" equipment and try to stick to it all the way thru. I next to never get any Tigers. Heck, I think I have only had the Panther just a few times. It gets too easy having the big dogs..LOL.

For example, me and a buddy double up on a campaign, he goes for the hard hitting heavily armored stuff, and I go for the average/lower hitting and average/lesser armored stuff. He does well in his sectors, but, he also uses different tactics than I do. He goes nose to nose with them, because he can. lol. I usually have to out smart them, wait for them to get close enough to penetrate the enemy armor, wait for side/rear shots, or my favorite, use my anti-tank guns to provide covering fire etc, etc....you guys get the jist.

I love seeing those T-34s and KVs marching down the battlefield with the feeling of invincibility as my PaK 38 crews are saying, "Closer, come on closer...wait for it, wait for it, NOW! FIRE!" and BAM...flamer...LOL....

[Marek_Tucan]

For example when playing Soviets, I tend to upgrade units once the company/platoon either made a significant rise on experience or suffered so heavy loses it's rather reforming the unit than upgrading it. This way I keep BT-7 co (with damaged tanks being repaired but destroyed ones not being replaced) until it's all but wiped out, then upgrade entire company to T-34.

[codman]

Great question, not sure how to answer it. For me even though I've read tons of books on the war, I haven't a clue as to what the actual composition to any type of formation. Depending on what nation I'm playing I'll try different combinations but I tend to always start out with a company of infantry, an FO unit, a couple of scouts and then I'll add a couple of tank platoons or a company so everyone can ride. As I said I don't know how realistic my cores are but I try to keep them small and my maps big. This way I scare myself as I can't always control my flanks and I can't tell if the AI is going to do an end around. The area of realism that I struggle the hardest with is trying to save my units. Experience is like a drug and once your core gets some it's awful tough to not go back and restart a screwed up battle. Sometimes I wish that instead of gaining experience we could just get more points for a victory and perhaps we wouldn't become so attached to our units.

[PanzerBob]

Yes,interesting question, for me it depends on my mood and sometimes what part of the war I'm reading about. When I play as the Allies I usually stick to realism, and also when I start early in the war with the Germans I stick there as well.

As for "winning" Orbats and equipment, I have a passion for "What If" campaigns, these usually involve recruiting heavy KG's of roughly 2/3's Bn size as my core, fighting late 44/early 45 to Dec 46. But I really wouldn't say these even aren't too unrealistic either as I have lost or been baddly mauled, as well as kicking big butt at times.

I don't think I've ever (except during the early days of SP1 when I was still fine tuning my skills)skewed things to point where I'm more like Hammer's Slammers on the battlefield...............where would the enjoyment be in that!!!

Cheers, Bob

[blitzkreig]

Good question!

I love playing as the Germans as they played such a large part in shaping the combat equipment and tactics still in use today. The problem is they have so much cool kit! It is hard to resist, but I do normally try and opt for realism, basing my core around a kamfgruppe of PzGren.

Its worth rembering that there were actually very few Tigers and they were in most cases part of speical units so normally only get taken as support choices unless I play as SS.

Its worth remembering as a German player that there were very few Armoured infantry units availbable during the early war years to. In 1939 there were apparently only 68 251 Apcs actually in service!

[badger45]

I am rarely using top equipment. It is so satisfying to see the old scrap win because of tactics, even more if you have inferior troops regarding experience. That's the game about, after all, about you as general.

I played some "realistic" campaigns though, where I simply referred to a random number generator (or if you have a dice, I don't). You know what numbers of equipment where available, so you can simply roll and buy. It relieves me from long decisions, if it is realistic to have this one. Especially because you HAVE a chance to buy King Tigers in perfectly "realistic" manner That is, if you don't plan frequent upgrades. I upgraded just once a year.

[narwan]

I mostly play PBEM games. My most played sides are the Italians and the Japanese (in that order). So I guess no uberweapons for me!

I also like to create somewhat realistic forces. Sometimes I base my force on actual TO&E's, other times I just gor a thematic feel (like using only Luftwaffe field units or Ost-Infantry for the infantry formations).

Narwan

[Shan]

blitzkreig said:
Its worth remembering as a German player that there were very few Armoured infantry units availbable during the early war years to. In 1939 there were apparently only 68 251 Apcs actually in service!

Ian,

You're right, the number of APCs available was very low, and most Panzergrenadier units had 1 battalion on APCs at most, but never all 3, not even Waffen-SS units. I'm not the picky type of person, just curious: 68 thousand APCs sounds in German service in '39 sounds like really way too high to me! This may be some total war production number, I might be able to find those, but even then it sounds very high! Do you have a source for this? And do we talk about the same thing - namely only SdKfz 251+250 half-track APCs?

I got a book on German weapons production with a lot of statistics and data, I meantioned it in the thread on motorcycle scouts - the numbers it provides are very detailed for most vehicles and weapons, I could tell you the numbers of various weapons that the Wehrmacht had in its inventory at several key dates during the war, the losses during every year and campaign, etc --- unfortunately in this case there is no separate number for APCs, but it says that (abbreviated) at the start of the war the german army had 3.7 million men in total, and active/in reserve 115000/9000 trucks, 2700/600 tanks, and 1300/200 light armored vehicles - this would include the 4-wheel, 6-wheel and 8-wheel recon vehicles - the book says it is difficult to find production numbers for the SdKfz250/251 series, as production numbers often include those of unarmored 1-ton and 3-ton half-track towing tractors, which are based on the same vehicle, but to give you an idea: the books I got agree that total production of the light -250 was around 7500 vehicles and over 16.000 for the medium -251. Also, AFAIK production of both versions only started in '39 or '38 and therefore the numers available on 09/1/39 must have been rather low.