Force Composition Talk

Order of Battle is a series of operational WW2 games starting with the Pacific War and then on to Europe!

Moderators: The Artistocrats, Order of Battle Moderators

Post Reply
prestidigitation
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 298
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 1:24 am

Force Composition Talk

Post by prestidigitation » Mon Jan 25, 2021 7:27 pm

Assume one of three scenarios:

* low intensity (Finland, Morning Star) with constrained resources and low tech level

* jungle (Burma or US/JP/Marine Pacific Campaigns)

* high intensity (SOV/GER and soon Western Allies campaign)

The low intensity scenario has a mix of terrain types and is chiefly defined by a lack of resources and low tech level.

The jungle scenario is high resource but the terrain actively works against you with lots of efficiency destroying jungle and probably amphibious landings.

The high intensity scenario includes mostly ideal mechanized terrain and lots of resources.

Ask

Pick one, then describe what would your ideal early, mid and late game force composition be over the course of a campaign set in that “scenario” and why you made the choices you did. Please also provide your preferred difficulty level.

TheFilthyCasual
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Posts: 77
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2018 3:56 am

Re: Force Composition Talk

Post by TheFilthyCasual » Mon Jan 25, 2021 9:44 pm

I can comfortably play on difficulty 5 but I don't because I consider 3 to be....I dunno, "fair"? Everyone gets 10 points, everyone's units are as durable as each other, the difference is the AI has way more units but I have higher income.

Since it's my favorite, let's go with Jungle.

In an ideal world you'd have a whole army of Gurkhas or Marines for but in practice this is prohibitively expensive given the sometimes attritional nature of infantry combat, especially in rough terrain. So I typically only get one 'division' (3 units + 1 artillery) of elite infantry that have the Guerilla trait and move them through the side of the map with the roughest terrain - or, if they're marines, wherever a landing would be most advantageous. I make do on the rest of the map with two other divisions of regular infantry (except the Marines campaign, it would feel... wrong to not have all my infantry be Marines). Normally I'd get the Gurkhas/Marines first but all the jungle campaigns except obviously the Marines one either start you with infantry (Burma/Rising Sun) or put you on the defence (US) so I end up with one infantry division first and buying the Marines next, then more infantry. Because the jungle slows down your advance, I like to then add a division (minus artillery, since they can't be air dropped - I do wish they'd make 75mm guns and smaller transportable by air, since historically they were, even with WW2 aircraft) of paratroopers to 'jump' over the jungle and closer to objectives.

Having this much elite infantry can be resource draining so I don't include too much beyond this. I only have two tanks - one light for scouting, one medium/heavy to support my main thrust. A couple dual-purpose AA are something I always buy in any campaign. Maybe a heavy artillery unit and an engineer to crack the hardest defences. But I've never found any spare resources to spend on anything else.

prestidigitation
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 298
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 1:24 am

Re: Force Composition Talk

Post by prestidigitation » Wed Jan 27, 2021 4:20 pm

I admit to a similar desire to keep an all Marine force in the USMC campaign, although I’m thinking I should revisit that campaign with a different concept.

I personally think the low intensity campaigns — in particular the Finland one — are usually the tougher ones. You can definitely do some “recovery breathing” in a scenario by not going for optional objectives and playing safe in a high intensity or jungle campaign, but you can’t pull a similar trick when you make 5RP a turn!

Post Reply

Return to “Order of Battle Series”