Infantry - What Do You pick?

[Ironfist]

U.S. Army: FSSF
12 men, commando type

Weapon:
M1 Rifle (semi-auto)
3 BARs
Bazooka
Flame

[Charles22]

Originally Posted by Ironfist

U.S. Army: FSSF
12 men, commando type

Weapon:
M1 Rifle (semi-auto)
3 BARs
Bazooka
Flame

Sounds really good. How about before the bazooka was available?

[iCaMpWiThAWP]

Originally Posted by Charles22

So that's your ideal unit? You wouldn't rather get another LMG in slot 3 if possible? I guess that's pretty much what your 12-13 man squad consists of, one rifle and one LMG, although even those can be different, like the SMG units having SMG instead of rifle, but your main area of choice ends up being usually in slots 3 and 4.

well, another LMG slot would make units lack heavy weapons, like satchels, because usually they are given Hand grenades, it would be like,a 12 man squad would pack, 10 rifles, 1 smg or 2 LMGs, hand grenades for everyone, filling the 4 slots

Originally Posted by Charles22

Sounds really good. How about before the bazooka was available?

Hand grenade perhaps?

[Charles22]

Originally Posted by iCaMpWiThAWP

well, another LMG slot would make units lack heavy weapons, like satchels, because usually they are given Hand grenades, it would be like,a 12 man squad would pack, 10 rifles, 1 smg or 2 LMGs, hand grenades for everyone, filling the 4 slots

Hand grenade perhaps?

From what I have seen, unless you're talking about scouts or a unit with not all the slots used, you won't see satchel charges in slot 3, so you wouldn't have any choice there if true. I have always seen, on units with all the slots used, the satchel charges in slot 4.

Slot 3, from what I have seen, is "usually" another anti-personnel weapon (again, for units with all the slots used). I'm pretty sure I have seen infantry with two anti-tank weapons, but it is really rare. I believe the only units I have seen with 2 anti-tank slots were engineers. Come to think of it, I can't recall any non-engineer units having flamethrowers available so your best anti-tank, at least the short range assault variety, seem pretty much just engineer and elite units territory. One pioneer SS unit actually has three slots for anti-tank (all range 1).

[Ironfist]

Originally Posted by Charles22

Sounds really good. How about before the bazooka was available?

They were only available between Jul. 43 to Dec. 44. Born with bazooka.
Another type of FSSF section has 60mm mortar and satchel charge in slot 3 & 4, respectively.

[Lt. Ketch]

When it comes to infantry, I've had to grow into it. I used to be a hardcore tanker (25+ AFV vers 12-15 infantry squads), but I've learned a little more about tactics since that time and have since reversed my force make up. I also turn the tank heavy off.

My personal preference is for infantry that can do a variety of tasks.

Originally Posted by Ironfist

U.S. Army: FSSF
12 men, commando type

Weapon:
M1 Rifle (semi-auto)
3 BARs
Bazooka
Flame

I'm with Ironfist here. Not only can the FSSF engage infantry at range with devestating results, they can do it a point blank range as well with the flamer and engage tanks at short range or up close. But only good if your playing the US and only historicly accurate in small numbers.

Brandenburgs are another personal favorite for tank support, but I don't like the lack of "boom" the duel LMGs have. Best when you can get them with satchel charges. They do make the perfect tank rider though, since they can keep infantry, ATGs and other tank deterunts at bay even if the tank gets a little ways ahead. However, they're in the same boat with the FSSF, historicly accurate in small numbers.

I didn't use to be one for historicly accurate battle, but I'm finding it more a challange and consiquently, more educational. My basic guidlines now are to find infantry with a good rifles or lmgs, one explosive for close up work (I like to get close when I can) and an anti-tank weapon. As far as engineers go, I really like the boom they provide but know that I have to limit their use to areas when they can get in close and personal. I really like the platoons that have an mg or at team attached, as it provides more versitility within the group.

[Charles22]

Originally Posted by Lt. Ketch

When it comes to infantry, I've had to grow into it. I used to be a hardcore tanker (25+ AFV vers 12-15 infantry squads), but I've learned a little more about tactics since that time and have since reversed my force make up. I also turn the tank heavy off.

My personal preference is for infantry that can do a variety of tasks.

I'm with Ironfist here. Not only can the FSSF engage infantry at range with devestating results, they can do it a point blank range as well with the flamer and engage tanks at short range or up close. But only good if your playing the US and only historicly accurate in small numbers.

Brandenburgs are another personal favorite for tank support, but I don't like the lack of "boom" the duel LMGs have. Best when you can get them with satchel charges. They do make the perfect tank rider though, since they can keep infantry, ATGs and other tank deterunts at bay even if the tank gets a little ways ahead. However, they're in the same boat with the FSSF, historicly accurate in small numbers.

I didn't use to be one for historically accurate battle, but I'm finding it more a challenge and consequently, more educational. My basic guidlines now are to find infantry with a good rifles or lmgs, one explosive for close up work (I like to get close when I can) and an anti-tank weapon. As far as engineers go, I really like the boom they provide but know that I have to limit their use to areas when they can get in close and personal. I really like the platoons that have an mg or at team attached, as it provides more versitility within the group.

I don't know if the game adjustment for assaults is to blame or not, but I do notice a very high rate of failed assaults (at least when compared to how they were before - I do agree, BTW, that it was too high before, but just going over this as early Germany, it seems the fail rate is too high now IMO). What that means for my strategy is that it may well turn out that even with the germans, having a flamethrower may be of little use if the blasted assault fails at that high a rate. Naturally, you would expect that as my troops get into the 80's and beyobd that problem will diminish largely, but I'm pretty sure that even then you are better off with ranged weapons overall. IOW, as the fail rate stands, I would rather have a panzerfaust than a flamethrower; even at range one.

What I am considering is that the ranged AT weapons don't have to pass an assault check, even for very near distance. In the early years, you really don't have any ranged AT weapons worthy of respect for anything medium-sized or better, so you're stuck until then.

As far as the Brandenburgers go, if I read you correctly you seem to be under the mistaken impression that I cannot get B's with both satchel charges -and- two LMG's. No, that's the very thing that attracted me to them, that they are so solid in both anti-personnel and anti-tank useage. I'm not too sure of the B's later available kit, but it might be a good odea to substitute one LMG for a pnzrfst, but I certainly wouldn't substitute an LMG for another weapon that has to pass an assault check.

As far as making an army of specialists go, as has so often been my theme, my force compromises also of those less than adequate, to sort of make up for some of the specializations, such as the that one lot of infantry for Gerry which is like minus five in both exp/mor.

Yes, I do think it is something of a waste of time to play a force which really has no weaknesses, and that becomes ever more profound if we find ourselves picking every infantry unit with AT assault weaponary all the time. So you have your uber-units, the Brandenburgers and such, your regular troops, and then maybe a few less than adequate troops; all choices made in order to add something of a real world flavor. What this amounts to, is sort of fighting with 2-3 small armies at the same time, as you will get that much of a variance between them.

[Lt. Ketch]

Originally Posted by Charles22

As far as the Brandenburgers go, if I read you correctly you seem to be under the mistaken impression that I cannot get B's with both satchel charges -and- two LMG's. No, that's the very thing that attracted me to them, that they are so solid in both anti-personnel and anti-tank useage. I'm not too sure of the B's later available kit, but it might be a good odea to substitute one LMG for a pnzrfst, but I certainly wouldn't substitute an LMG for another weapon that has to pass an assault check.

As far as making an army of specialists go, as has so often been my theme, my force compromises also of those less than adequate, to sort of make up for some of the specializations, such as the that one lot of infantry for Gerry which is like minus five in both exp/mor.

Yes, I do think it is something of a waste of time to play a force which really has no weaknesses, and that becomes ever more profound if we find ourselves picking every infantry unit with AT assault weaponary all the time.

Charles 22,

I appreciate your comments! I'm sorry about the Bs. I do know that you can get them with shatchels, and I think that's the best configuation.

I don't mean to bash the use of specializations as I enjoyed a series of battles with US rangers and FSSF on a 20X20 map. I do like your idea of taking some infiorer units to compensate. I'll probably start doing that as well. It's a good idea.

You make a very good point in your last paragraph. Thanks for the material to think on.

Thanks for your thoughts.

[PanzerBob]

Good day all.

When playing the AI as the Germans, usually SS Troops and I like Motorcycle Troops as well usually as my vanguard. Weapons wise, especially early in the war, I'm more concerned they have good LMG's and MMG's in the Kompanie mix. I try to leave to Anti-tank work to the Panzers. As well in the early stages a good stock of grenades still makes infantry assaults against some armour likely to have a good result, if put in or found in that situation.

PBEM causes me to look more carefully at the infantry I choose. The differences in national troops alone, makes this paramount.
In common is LMG and MMG factor, and striving to make the force real enough that such a force could have fought or would have been desirable!! Timeframe is a big factor here as well as early war troops in some countries were not as good as they look formed up on the parade square before a battle!!!

Bob out

[Charles22]

Originally Posted by PanzerBob

Good day all.

When playing the AI as the Germans, usually SS Troops and I like Motorcycle Troops as well usually as my vanguard. Weapons wise, especially early in the war, I'm more concerned they have good LMG's and MMG's in the Kompanie mix. I try to leave to Anti-tank work to the Panzers. As well in the early stages a good stock of grenades still makes infantry assaults against some armour likely to have a good result, if put in or found in that situation.

PBEM causes me to look more carefully at the infantry I choose. The differences in national troops alone, makes this paramount.
In common is LMG and MMG factor, and striving to make the force real enough that such a force could have fought or would have been desirable!! Timeframe is a big factor here as well as early war troops in some countries were not as good as they look formed up on the parade square before a battle!!!

Bob out

It is somewhat fascinating Bob, that in your desire for LMG's, and your desire for SS, that these should conflict. The general early SS, doesn't have the best early LMG (mg34). I think the basic SS get mg42's when they come along, but some of them don't get mg34's in the early years. I think only the CO unit gets any mg34's. Most of the early year's SS get some inferior LMG.