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.

[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.

[Charles22]

Originally Posted by Lt. Ketch

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.

Thank you. I think you can see where I'm coming from. It is perhaps the most important outlook that drives how I play. That is, in order to make things more interesting, you play with a force around the default points size to start with, play on a map that many would say is too large for it, and have what amounts to seperate formations.

So every formation has at one time or another to fight on it's own, instead of everything just being one whole collective blob. So while you have very strong units, you also have some weak ones. The whole general idea is to make one battle, or one campaign, seem like many, because there are many different problems with many different answers. I have both the ability to dominate and also to have to withdraw or fight as best as possible until help arrives.

[stormbringer3]

I have very infantry heavy core forces when I play. Right now I am playing a late-war long campaign in Italy with a GebirgsJaeger force. The only armor I am using are 251's to transport my ATG and AAA units since trucks are such deathtraps. I find that when playing infantry units, a 12-13 man unit is the best because of staying power and a better chance to save them to gain experience.

[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