Infantry - What Do You pick?

[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.