How do I use ammo trucks?

[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.

[RERomine]

Charles, I've attacked a simple save file as an example of how trucks rally passengers. There are a series of German trucks on the road and the lead truck has a suppression of 6 and the passenger has a suppression of 7. You can unload the passenger and confirm this. Reload the file and rally the truck with the passenger still on board. It might take a reload or two because the experience and morale of the truck is just national average. Once you do get a successful rally, unload the passenger as well and you will see it also rallied. This method allows you to see both the before and after pictures of the situation. I'm not sure if it should work this way, but it does.

As far as ammo trucks running away, it is something that can happen, but isn't common. Since ammo trucks are unarmored, they are more likely to be destroyed or immobilized than just suppressed. I have had them run before, but the overall objective is to keep ammo trucks out of harms way whether they are core or support. Typically, I'm careful with my supply vehicles, but the AI sometimes just slings artillery randomly and gets lucky. I start with trucks, but switch to armored carriers as soon as practical. Some nations have armed and armored ammo supply vehicles available and some don't. Armed isn't as important to me since their role isn't to fight. I use two supply vehicles as battalion level support with my core.

Your theory about deleting units from my core is incorrect because you don't find out what the mission is until after you pass the repair phase. I've just tried out different units in my core to see if they worked for me and what I wanted to achieve. One example is I had added some Elefants and just found out they weren't worth it. Too expensive and I just figured I didn't need a slow moving pillbox. There are other instances where I had towed artillery with transport. I upgraded them to SPAs. As such, I didn't need the transports anymore and deleted them. Mostly, I add units to my core which is at 125 at the moment.

My core actually has 28 SdKfz 251/1 half-tracks for transport and an additional 8 recon or assault tracks. The transport tracks average 1 kill each, which isn't much but I use them to pepper a target and then run up and unload my infantry. Most of the time in those assaults, the infantry gets the kill. Trucks, even the few that are armed, aren't good for this type of attack. The tracks are with my core at all times. Most of my battles aren't defends so they are useful in delays, meeting engagements, advances and assaults. When the mission is a defend, I do park them but make a nice ad-hoc reserve if I need to use them as such. Personally, I find it a good thing if they can just stay parked the whole battle because it means I didn't need them.

On to the speed aspect, I do consider it to be important to not be in the same place for any length of time. This goes back to the artillery aspect again. The objective is to get out of the impact zone as soon as possible. Usually not a problem with trucks because if they don't blow up when the artillery comes in, they drop their load and cease to be transports. Tracks are much more survivable in this area. If I have units in any given area for more than three turns, I feel artillery is a risk. Being able to move and move quickly takes that out of the picture. Being able to move fast doesn't translate into being careless. The main purpose is to get them to from the LD to their assault position as quickly as possible so time. Sometimes, that assault position is in the enemy rear area. Why go through what you can go around? My entire force ends up in the enemy rear. No assets are left behind. I find it amusing to see the AI "counter-attack" and push into my deployment zone to find nothing there.

I am getting what you are saying about trucks in the core, but am just saying they aren't entirely worthless. Nearly so, but not completely. There are a couple of points in favor of it and at least six against. The point I was arguing against is that there were no benefits what so ever. As I said, I am not a fan of trucks unless it's the enemy using them. They die easily, unload at the slightest amount of incoming fire, they rarely have any offensive or defensive capability, off road mobility is limited, get stuck easily, etc. Because of these limitations, half-tracks are always the better option. I will take a track over a truck every time.

My core is two SS infantry companies, one tanks company, two heavy tank sections, a couple of SPA batteries, recon elements, two SPAA sections, three MG-42 sections and one section of ammo supply tracks. Of my core, only my two ammo supply tracks are unarmed. This force is balanced well to deal with most missions. This core runs about 8,000 points, mainly due to their experience. I've cycled different units in and out over time. The Elefants I mentioned earlier didn't meet my needs. I had StuGs at one point too, but I replaced them with Tigers. The 88mm on the Tigers is good, but I was more interested in the larger ammo supply the Tigers had. I've fought battles where I was running out of ammo and even having resupply didn't help. There wasn't time to pull units off the line for resupply. PzKw IVh tanks were hitting AI armor and half-tracks with HE rounds! Terrain prevented easy shifting of units from one section to another and visibility was low enough that units from one flank couldn't fire across the front of the other. The AI had a combination of 240+ AFVs and half-tracks, about 180 were left burning. My core is more oriented toward offensive action. It use to have six towed ATGs, but I got rid of those as well, because I found them generally useless in this role. My support points can be used to buy ATGs if the battle calls for them. I also found having any non-mobile units in my core was a waste as the AI tends to have scads of artillery with nothing better to do than pound them. Those are actually what were replaced by the Elefants. The campaign is in Italy right now and I don't encounter anything the Tigers can't deal with so the Elefants are gone also.

Because of the size of my core, I do rely heavily on defensive obstacles in defend missions. The AI usually attacks with 25,000+ points and I now have only 23 tank killing guns. Obstacles are required to give those 23 guns time to engage targets. Using obstacles isn't that great of an advantage because the AI is very adept at getting through them somewhere and often everywhere. I've faced situations where I've been out numbered 8 to 1 on tanks and time is required to thin them out before they get to me. A mobile defense doesn't make much sense, being that you would be giving up one bonus to being on the defense, the revetment for your tank. Aside from mines, I use fire trenches, wire and dragon's teeth. Other points go for bunkers and artillery. In a defend, very few support units are at the broken end of the bottle. Mostly my core is on the line. The only exception are the bunkers, which have a rifle. My infantry stays hunkered down in those for protection against incoming artillery until they have to deploy against the AI assault force. As mentioned, my tracks all stay back on this type of mission, but there is one thing to consider. Each of those parked half-tracks have a AAMG so they provide support, even when off the line. They have taken out enemy aircraft before. As for aircraft, I rarely use them, except the spotter. Battle field intelligence is more valuable than the few units that a strike unit could take out.

Trust me, my core does most of the fighting. With a core of 8,000 points and support points ranging from 500-2,000 points, I couldn't win if they didn't. My force is designed as a reasonably realistic battalion sized task force oriented to the offense. As such, the SS infantry companies have track transport. I could go without tracks, but it doesn't make sense with the model I'm using. For me, putting them riding tanks isn't an option because I don't think it is modeled well in the game. Tank riders should be more vulnerable to casualties than they really are in the game, IMO. Overall, my core has served me well. There are instances where support units go in first. My core isn't an engineer battalion. I've got a few, but not enough to effectively breach the enemy line on an assault. They make the hole and my core blasts through it. My engineers are more intended for mines encountered beyond the main line. Remaining points tend to go for artillery, air spotter if available, additional recon and to fill any gaps that need filled, if the mission is something other than an assault. My standard on delays is six MG-42s and six 50mm ATGs. At a 2 to 1 disadvantage, I typically need more tank killing guns and the 50mm works well against the Americans and British in 1943. There are some DARs I've done out there that detail how my battles have gone.

[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.

[Charles22]

Originally Posted by 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.

Great idea about adjusting the map size for the mission, to cripple human defense and help AI defense, only problem is I think the only way is random, as you can go with a size and hope the mission goes along with that. Then re-load if it does not. You have to pick the map size before the mission is stated.