Armor Differences and Tactics

[Gerry4321]

Hello:

On another thread the point values for the T28 and Pz38t were mentioned. Also different characteristics such as the T28 being faster. Have players been able to use different characteristics in armor in a realistic tactical manner in BA1 (realize it would not be the T28 there)? Here for example I assume the faster T28 would try and flank the more heavily armored Pz38t?

Asking as I like to understand how to use vehicles and I am not a grog or experienced player.

Thansk,

Gerry

[IronFist00]

The short answer to your question is "yes."

The longer answer is I try as much as possible to use the units in their intended role and in a combined arms fashion. The good news is, with few exceptions the game rewards that. As an example I try to have as much or more infantry with my armor as possible, using them as a screening force especially in woods and urban environments. I lead with Scouts who can see two tiles in most situations compared to other infantry. Preferably I have the Scouts in the front, LMGs in support (their firepower and suppression ability is higher against soft targets) and Infantry/Rifle squads on their flanks. If I have access to Engineers/SMGs/Flame Thrower units I try to have them assault when needed, whether fortifications, houses, or enemy armor (and then from the flanks). Whenever possible I move the infantry in heavy (50+%) cover to keep them protected. Of course your mileage will vary based on the map layout, terrain, force composition, quantity, etc but that is my plan.

Armor I try to avoid ambush areas (next to woods, urban, etc.) unless I have infantry screening and spotting along with them. If forced to operate in a open area, I use RAD/Scout cars to Fast Move ahead and spot, hoping their speed will allow them to survive that first attack while also spotting (nothing worse than the ambush). I tend to lead with a damage soaker like the Tiger or IS2 since they can take the hits usually. My workhorses are usually the Panther/T34/85/PIVGs and they comprise my second line. ISU-152 and Jagdpanthers I use more on defense (actually same with HMGs and Mortars).

When playing earlier scenarios I apply the same tactics substituting early war units like the PIII, StuG, T34/76, T28, etc. in the role of their big brothers. As a small confession, I prefer the early war units more than the "Sexier" late game stuff with the PIII, StuG, and T34/76 being my favorites. And another confession would be I prefer infantry and winning with that even more rewarding. I wish there was a way to do a co-op Skirmish where I gave my friend all my armor and I took all our Infantry. I would love that.

Anyway, that's my $0.02. Sorry if the post was longer than warranted.

[Gerry4321]

Thanks very much for the long reply.

Which of these would be your damage soaker in the early war years (PIII, StuG, T34/76, T28). Rest being the workhorses I assume.

And from a historical perspective did the Germans lead with the Tigers?

No need to apologize for the long post. On hte contrary the one thing I miss on these forums is lengthy discussions on tactics, units, etc. It's a while since I played ASL but they always had active forums.

Thanks again,

Gerry

[jcb989]

I wish there was a way to do a co-op Skirmish where I gave my friend all my armor and I took all our Infantry. I would love that.

This sounds to me like a great future addition to the features they should offer. Why not be able to assign which units in co-op are in which command? It sounds like a no-brainer now that co-op is a feature.

[IronFist00]

For the Germans it would be StuG III > PIV D > PIII. Even though the armor listing for the PIII front is higher than the PIV I find the PIV takes a better beating. Also at that point in the war the PIII was a better offensive weapon so I like to reserve it for attacks and flanking. For the Russians it would be the T34/76. It is both the best damage soaker and has the best gun (a truly remarkable tank for that part of the war). I use it as the point of schwerpunkt for the Russians. You can use the BA7s to support as well as the T28s and have them exploit and openings.

Tigers and King Tigers are better defensive tanks (low mobility) and for slugfests hence why they are great damage soakers with their high armor and good guns. Optimally I feel the Panther is the best armor for attacking with PIVGs in support. Panther's main gun is actually superior to the Tigers (and it shows in-game too), it's frontal armor is slightly better, and it has excellent mobility. I always buy as many of them as I can while still fielding a good sized Infantry force. For the Russians it would be the T34/85 which was designed to counter the Panther and was done so in record time (for the US that would be the M26 Pershing but it took about double the time to develop). The T34/85 is basically the same chassis as the T34/76 with a bigger turret, bigger main gun, a radio, and better transverse so it was an evolutionary upgrade. The Pershing was a complete redesign of US armor philosophy. When the two of them fought in the Korean War (T34/85 vs M26) it was a test of both sides' reaction philosophies to the Germans.

For my money, the Panther was the best tank of the war even with it's later introduction. The T34 line was more versatile but if I had to fight in a tank during '44 and I had a choice, I'd be in a Panther.

I never played ASL but did play SL and currently play Band of Brothers, Conflict of Heroes, and Lock-n-Load in that order or preference. It's never been a better time to be a tactical wargame fan, both PC and boardgame than now.

[IronFist00]

This sounds to me like a great future addition to the features they should offer. Why not be able to assign which units in co-op are in which command? It sounds like a no-brainer now that co-op is a feature.

+1 - Any chance Pip or Ian of this happening at some point?

[Gerry4321]

It seems a lot of scenarios, in Blitzkrieg Camaign anyway, have a lot of armor compared to infantry. And is it true that you cannot do infantry-only skirmish? Wouldn't mind seeing more infantry.

You are right. A great time for WW II tactical gamers and with the expected expansions in BA2 the sky is the limit.

Gerry

For the Germans it would be StuG III > PIV D > PIII. Even though the armor listing for the PIII front is higher than the PIV I find the PIV takes a better beating. Also at that point in the war the PIII was a better offensive weapon so I like to reserve it for attacks and flanking. For the Russians it would be the T34/76. It is both the best damage soaker and has the best gun (a truly remarkable tank for that part of the war). I use it as the point of schwerpunkt for the Russians. You can use the BA7s to support as well as the T28s and have them exploit and openings.

Tigers and King Tigers are better defensive tanks (low mobility) and for slugfests hence why they are great damage soakers with their high armor and good guns. Optimally I feel the Panther is the best armor for attacking with PIVGs in support. Panther's main gun is actually superior to the Tigers (and it shows in-game too), it's frontal armor is slightly better, and it has excellent mobility. I always buy as many of them as I can while still fielding a good sized Infantry force. For the Russians it would be the T34/85 which was designed to counter the Panther and was done so in record time (for the US that would be the M26 Pershing but it took about double the time to develop). The T34/85 is basically the same chassis as the T34/76 with a bigger turret, bigger main gun, a radio, and better transverse so it was an evolutionary upgrade. The Pershing was a complete redesign of US armor philosophy. When the two of them fought in the Korean War (T34/85 vs M26) it was a test of both sides' reaction philosophies to the Germans.

For my money, the Panther was the best tank of the war even with it's later introduction. The T34 line was more versatile but if I had to fight in a tank during '44 and I had a choice, I'd be in a Panther.

I never played ASL but did play SL and currently play Band of Brothers, Conflict of Heroes, and Lock-n-Load in that order or preference. It's never been a better time to be a tactical wargame fan, both PC and boardgame than now.

[IainMcNeil]

We did have some co-op missions where units were split by armour/infantry but in practice we found they were extremely difficult. It may be realistic but we found the extra difficulty of combining your actions made the missions unwinnable! We had to take them out.

You could very easily make custom scenarios with forces split by type but its not currently possible in skirmish. In scenarios you set the team to specify if the unit is controlled by one player or the other.

[IronFist00]

Thanks Ian one of my friends who I co-op with all the time is currently trying to make that work.

What about the option to trade units at the start/placement screen in Skirmish or missions that are co-operative? Is that doable? Because if it is then you can design and balance missions as they are currently but allow the players to decide to try it if they are nuts. My one friend and I have been gaming together for 14 years (RTS, RTT, Turn-based Tactical, etc.) and would probably go for it to see if we could pull it off.

Also someone else mentioned having a option in Skirmish to do infantry only battles. Is there any plan on doing that?

[IainMcNeil]

I am pretty sure you could add a command in a mod to change the control of the unit by switching its team. Might be a cool feature for CO-OP