which infantry do you prefer (pre-1943)

PC : Turn based WW2 goodness in the mold of Panzer General. This promises to be a true classic!

Moderators: Slitherine Core, Panzer Corps Moderators, Panzer Corps Design

koala404
Corporal - Strongpoint
Corporal - Strongpoint
Posts: 65
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 10:19 am

Re: which infantry do you prefer (pre-1943)

Post by koala404 » Fri Feb 28, 2014 11:43 pm

My most common Inf choice in a scenario is Fallschirmjaeger. Four of them. No transport. Cheap as hell, so easy to replace, great initiative too. Just make sure you don't park them in the open. Once they have decent experience, they dont take a lot of losses in most terrain, so even having just one or two ammo left is enough to make them useful.

I havent used the Pioniere much. I found the Fallschirmjaeger fit the same tasks, move faster, and seem to take a hell of a lot less combat damage - I assume because of the higher initiative. And they are cheaper to replace. So Pioniere are for me the least useful units, except perhaps in one or two full-fort scenarios where I took them without transports just to make up numbers (and based on my experience, it reminded me that they are not that useful even now).

HW is a bit limiting in the movement, even with a +1 move hero. I would much prefer to put the +1 move onto a 3-move infantry and then have either a Gebirgs- or Fallschirm-jaeger with no transport (cheap to replace) and tactical utility.

Basic infantry? I suppose i have least experience with these guys. I put some in trucks, but always seem to make other choices at deployment. I put some in halftracks, but find I spend way too much replacing them. I left some without transport, but then why would you not choose Gebirgs- or Fallschirms- instead? So I find they simply don't have a place to 'fit' into things. If they were far cheaper, perhaps. But the prestige issue isn't enough for me to go with the basics, when they are cuter toys in the pram to play with.

Krads and Cavalry? I used cav in the very early GC with some good effect, but they slowly get overtaken by increasing values of armour and AT units to the point that they lack power by 40 and 41. Krads I used in specific scenarios, mainly the larger maps during summer months only. Then the mobility had some serious benefits. However I find after 41, the maps don't match this sort of play style, so I just don't get the chance to deploy them any more. And as soon as '43 rolls around, forget it.

Bruckenpioniere I use only in very specific scenarios where I can use them to make a breakthrough, and allow my armor and mechanised units to gain mobility one or two turns earlier than they otherwise would. I find this can disrupt the way the AI purchases its reinforcements, so it can turn a pocket from a never-ending slog of cheap AT, AA and Inf, into a slow-reduction while I race around grabbing all the extra prestige in his back-field. But they ain't worth a damn in combat, and they are not cheap to replace, so I find once they do the job, they just hang around and smoke, and every so often capture a prestige location just to free someone else up from the bothersome task.

Just my two cents.

El_Jairo
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Posts: 29
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 11:01 pm

Re: which infantry do you prefer (pre-1943)

Post by El_Jairo » Wed Mar 19, 2014 9:30 pm

Many thanks Koala for your insights. I only just played through GC39 so my experience is rather limited. I can understand your points about the cost to replace infantry but don't you think 4 ammo is rather low for front troops? Or do you use you're para's so aggressively that they need replacements every 4 turns?
I think that there is also a huge role for infantry to be effective at defense, so that is where Grenadiers can shine.
For now I do appreciate to have just one Pioneer unit in my core. It effectively ignores entrenchment, so it is great at speeding up the process of taking cities. You only need 1 arty shot for some supression and the pioneers can deal a ton of damage. Another inf can move in for the kill.
I ended GC39 on about 7kPP so maybe I still need to find a better strategy for infantry. (Apart from making rushing mistakes)

Resolute
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Posts: 366
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 11:25 pm

Re: which infantry do you prefer (pre-1943)

Post by Resolute » Wed Mar 19, 2014 11:05 pm

Any hero with a movement bonus I usually turn into Grenadiers. In the late game these guys just cause absolute havoc to tanks in close defence hexes. I also make sure to have around 2 Pioneers. Oleh Dir is always my first option. This guy is just a one man army on steroids.

koala404
Corporal - Strongpoint
Corporal - Strongpoint
Posts: 65
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 10:19 am

Re: which infantry do you prefer (pre-1943)

Post by koala404 » Thu Mar 20, 2014 12:13 am

El_Jairo,

I understand where you are coming from.

Based on the limited experience I have, and I will say I dont play at super-difficult settings either, I found that the Pioneere's low initiative just led them to being bashed around to the point where I am always having to repair them which costs prestige, takes turns away, and makes their extra ammo useless anyway.

For Fallschirms, the only time I have to repair them is when a rugged defence happens, or I get careless. If you can suppress (not even needing to damage) the defenders a little when they have high entrenchment, then I find the high initiative of these guys makes the defensive fire totally ineffective, so in the long-term they are more cost effective than pioneers.

The movement is a plus. The low ammo does limit their utility a little, but I find that about one turn in four I have to reposition other units anyway, so it hasnt seemed to slow me down much (and I find I have to repair the damn pioneeres about one in four anyway) .

Every so often I have to leave a guy exposed with no ammo, but some creative use of artillery will limit any bad outcome there, particularly once you have SP artillery that can sit in the front line a bit (StuG IIIB, or even better the StuH or Brummbar later down the track) - that makes the exposure less likely and less impacting. Personally, I'd take a couple points hit on an arty unit than lose my infantry overstrength early in a scenario. The number of high-damage combats I want that infantry to be in is just much more important than a few extra points of suppression from arty, and I can always fire a second arty. With a low strength infantry unit, you can only clean up little stuff, you cant mount sensible attacks on fresh units at all, so keeping the infantry with a high strength is for me the real challenge.

I think that is what leads to my 14-point Fallschirm units that seem at worst to take one point of damage on a full strength defender regardless of terrain and entrench. That too me is the whole killer stack in one go.

antoniocapo
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Posts: 123
Joined: Sat Feb 15, 2014 1:16 pm

Re: which infantry do you prefer (pre-1943)

Post by antoniocapo » Thu Mar 20, 2014 10:52 am

Yes, paratroopers are great. They hit harder than a regular infantry for about the same cost. They even hit entrenched harder than a grenadier while costing less and with superior mobility of 3! And to add insult to injury they have the airdrop capability for some major strategic gain on maps. All that for just 140?! No need for transports. Having a couple in your core helps to take objectives fast and win decisive victories while at the same time saving prestige and bringing the average prestige soft cap down.

Only inconvenience is ammo of 4 (which can be interpreted as effective ammo of 3 as you should resupply at that and not be attacked while out of ammo). Their ground defense of 5 is bad if within enemy artillery range, but in close combat their high initiative makes up for it and are tough to dislodge when entrenched (so far i have not been dislodged :) )

HeresiarchQin
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Posts: 12
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2014 12:44 pm

Re: which infantry do you prefer (pre-1943)

Post by HeresiarchQin » Thu Mar 20, 2014 12:35 pm

I've grown to love the normal infantry and the gebirgsjager. During my vanilla campaign I used exclusively grenadiers, pioneers, and no infantry nor gebirgsjager. Now for the GC I'm using the latter two mostly.

The extra 1 movement point is truly a godsend. I had a lot of trouble bringing grenadiers and pioneers up to the front. Sure, they have nice damage dealing capabilities, but units that don't get to fire shots at all are not dealing any damage.

On the contrary, the 3 movement infantries are amazing in circumvating positions and advancing into difficult terrains. The difference of 3 mp vs 2 mp is being able to move into AND out of a forest to attack something vs being stuck at said forest and unable to attack anything on that turn.

My original concerns on using those infantries are their low hard attack value. However, with the practical experience gained from finishing vanilla and AC, along with the knowledge of damage vs defense calculation, I realized that low HA isn't a issue at all. Low HA, even at 1, still does a lot of damage against tanks in close terrains. And in open terrains, even grenadiers and pioneers will be demolished if they attack directly with their better, but still weak HA. On the other hand, the extra 1 mp allows infantries a lot more chances to attack tanks stuck in cities or forests. It'll also allow them to position themselves in close terrains eaiser as well.

Speaking of Gebirgsjagers, currently I'm still using Oleh Dir as one of them instead of changing into a grenadier/pioneer which is a popular choice. These guys' all terrain movement ability, combined with the extra 4 mp (my Oleh Dir squad got another +1 mp hero lol), makes them an AMAZING fire brigade squad, parkouring through mountains and forests, jumping from cities to cities to aid the most difficult fronts, destroy artilleries behind enemy lines, block enemy advances, etc. It almost feel like they have teleportation/jump packk as an ability.

nightterrors
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Posts: 16
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2012 11:04 am

Re: which infantry do you prefer (pre-1943)

Post by nightterrors » Thu Mar 20, 2014 2:43 pm

When playing offensive-oriented campaigns (vanilla, AK, DLC up to '42) I use regular infantry and gebirgsjaeger due to their mobility. My core tends to be heavy on artillery so I don't find much use for pioneers except for particular scenarios - for these I usually convert an existing infantry unit. I only find grenadiers useful on the defense. I would really like to use paratroopers more but their limited ammo puts me off.

endur
Corporal - Strongpoint
Corporal - Strongpoint
Posts: 58
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 6:03 pm

Re: which infantry do you prefer (pre-1943)

Post by endur » Thu Mar 20, 2014 7:12 pm

My use of infantry has evolved.

Lately, for prestige cap reasons, I've been buying trucks for move 2 infantry and letting move 3+ infantry go without a vehicle.

I like regular infantry, gebirsjaeger, and pioneers. Oleh Dir becomes a pioneer.

I have tried the paratroopers. The low price is great, but they die so fast if caught in the open or in the air.

I'm experimenting with grenadiers.

In the DLC campaign, I try to have 2 pioneers (Oleh +1 more) from 1939 DLC on.

rodney727
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2011 5:32 am

Re: which infantry do you prefer (pre-1943)

Post by rodney727 » Thu Mar 20, 2014 7:25 pm

These are great tips guys. I consider myself a veteran player but now I'm thinking outside the box!

oasis22
Corporal - Strongpoint
Corporal - Strongpoint
Posts: 57
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2013 2:05 pm

Re: which infantry do you prefer (pre-1943)

Post by oasis22 » Fri Mar 21, 2014 4:42 am

If you endup finishing scn. 4 or 5 turn before, maybe it's time to change difficulty level, i've learn to enjoy playing with what i'm given
and learning the meaning of cunning. Changing Oleh Dir to pioneer in IMO is sacrifing positionning for attack with, no pretige gain.
Try playing with deducter mod it's more challenging and historical.

El_Jairo
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Posts: 29
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 11:01 pm

Re: which infantry do you prefer (pre-1943)

Post by El_Jairo » Fri Mar 21, 2014 3:08 pm

oasis22 wrote: Try playing with deducter mod it's more challenging and historical.
This is on my bucket list but I'm afraid it will take me a while to finish all campaigns on FM.
I do appreciate the Historical aspect of Deducter's mod but after watching his youtubes, I afraid that you have to keep in mind that PzC is game first and historical second.
For me the fact that you can use more AA & Arty units in AT mode is a big plus but Spotting Range of 4 basic on recon, I don't get. The fact that you can make a recon move is important enough to put these units in your core.

On Topic: I appreciate the feedback on Paratroopers an Pioneer. I must agree on both points so I guess I will create both.
The fact of using no transport on 3m infantry is a little shock to me but it is maybe the most efficient meta-game way to get the most out off prestige. Being a Power Gamer, I might be tempted to use this tactics too but I would like to do it later in the war.

Vorskl
Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
Posts: 432
Joined: Sun Mar 30, 2014 4:20 pm

Re: which infantry do you prefer (pre-1943)

Post by Vorskl » Mon Apr 07, 2014 12:53 am

I build my core around artillery and infantry. So I normally deploy 3-4 regular infantry and 2-3 gebirsjagers who scouts through the forests (never finish the turn with infantry staying in the open field). I deploy 1 HW and 1 Pioneer to storm entrenched units and forts. But since I normally suppress enemies with artillery fire, HW and Pioneers are used in rare cases on their own.
Bridgebuilders is the most useless unit - if you air/artillery strike is adequate, you can storm the bridge cities before the bridgebuilders even get to the river.

captainjack
Sr. Colonel - Wirbelwind
Sr. Colonel - Wirbelwind
Posts: 1712
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2012 7:42 am

Re: which infantry do you prefer (pre-1943)

Post by captainjack » Mon Apr 07, 2014 1:35 am

Bridge engineers aren't great in combat, but allow crossing a river at the point of your choosing, whether in a defensive situation or to send out a raiding party. Even so, on average, I probably use one unit once in each DLC. Much like recon units, they are almost as useful when inexperienced as with 5*, so they are cheap to reinforce or replace.

The biggest drawback is that they are only useful if they are at the river when you need them, and if you buy the fast halftrack they become expensive, but if you don't they can be so slow as to be useless.

iceFlame
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Posts: 300
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2014 4:11 am

Re: which infantry do you prefer (pre-1943)

Post by iceFlame » Mon Apr 07, 2014 6:45 am

captainjack wrote:The biggest drawback is that they are only useful if they are at the river when you need them, and if you buy the fast halftrack they become expensive, but if you don't they can be so slow as to be useless.
Agreed. Generally speaking, by the time you manage to get them into position, your spearhead units could already be across. The only real advantage IMO, is if you happen to have a long column of troops. Then they actually do speed up the process.
Image
Go deep here: slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=147&t=49469

El_Jairo
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Posts: 29
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 11:01 pm

Re: which infantry do you prefer (pre-1943)

Post by El_Jairo » Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:17 pm

I think I'm going to invest in a Bridge Pioneer. Certainly there is one scenario where you can avoid heavily defended positions by crossing the river out of sight.
Sure sadly you have one effective infantry less but they can mop up or capture all the same.
It is an advantage that you don't need any experience or heroes for this unit to be effective.

Maybe it's me trying to make the most out of every unit but I like to have diversity in my core so I have tool for every situation. Rather than the dull copy paste.

Fallschmjaeger
Private First Class - Opel Blitz
Private First Class - Opel Blitz
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2014 10:26 pm

Re: which infantry do you prefer (pre-1943)

Post by Fallschmjaeger » Tue Jun 03, 2014 2:56 pm

Infantry are one the more interesting classes because each one is unique. With most other unit types you just buy the newest one or best one you can afford. At best you choose sp v towed or slightly faster tank v slightly stronger. For infantry they're pretty much all worthwhile and have some strengths and weaknesses.

Calvary: I'll give my vote to the horsey as no one else has. I refuse to give up my calvary even if it should have been done in ww1. Despite not getting an upgrade in 43 I kept mine until at least Buddapest in the vanilla campaign. Even with weaker stats it does fine enough damage to suppressed infantry in cities, forests and hills. Moves well to get those knocked back stragglers. He even finishes off tanks. I always think of him as Indiana Jones sticking a rock in the barrell.

The motorcycle guys: seem like they would be the calv upgrade but i find them to be different. One is fuel of course and more the motorcycles seem to move better on the road and i let them get ahead of themselves or go off on thier own and they get killed. I keep one and one horse but have to replace the cycle more.

Gerblshmergles: I'll just say i'm convinced to field a bunch of them as standard infantry next time. In my first run through, no big spoiler but I lost much of my core force in the US midwest and drained my 20k for the invasion so by the time i got to the Rockies it wasn't too unfortunate to replenish lost Tiger II's with cheaper mountain inf. They didn't win it for me but they kept that northern area confused and off balance. A whole armored advance got cut down by some green infantry. Very satisfying. If my paras hadn't beaten them to Portland they would have had some influence there.

Pioneers: I used to like pioneers in the original version. the expense and slow movement are starting to bother me. I'm still going to keep a little bit of everything. but we'll see.

Bridge eng: I thought bridge eng were a necessity. Maybe not, you can certainly just fight over the river or take the turn (or 2 or 3) to cross it away from the action and loop around.

HW: my HW don't seem to do much better than anyone else. While the machine gun sound is cool I also like the flamethrower graphic on Pioneers who also have 2 move.

Fallschmjaeger: While i miss the Rangers from the classic AG and i don't have the new AC. Fallschmjaeger is a pretty cool name too if they're still just regular paratroopers. I just tried some dedicated ground front line fallscher's. I wasn't too impressed. Thier attacks didn't seem much better than anyone else and ammo is a problem.

There has been some discussion about how to use paratroopers and them getting torn up by late game air. and using them en masse. a few things: 1 is to rely on stealth in the air, even fighter escorts only defend them once and then it gets swarmed. Did i mention stealth already? Fly them to a remote looking area preferably over some mountains or forest behind enemy lines. People say they attract to much attention so of course use them to attract attention. You can draw back some tanks that are racing to the front and lure them into some thick forest. You want to get cities too though or what are they doing out there just getting beat up by diverted tanks. I've also tried dropping them just behind the enemy line (usually not a good idea) or back in your safe zone. Let the air war play out as it's usually over in a few turns anyway then put them back in thier planes and go looking for unguarded/ lightly guarded cities or airfields. At most i had 3-4 Fallschmjaegers at a time, found late in the game my air supremecy being challenged and didn't replace them all.

i think thats everyone except the basic infantry. I don't see them having much advantage over mtn inf. not my fav but the one post of someone who loves infantry loves the basic infantry. Maybe they're just balanced proper or if i used them more then i would love infantry too. I'm tempted to send out a dozen calvary before I do a bunch of plain normal infantry or some crazy biker gang would be funny. Biker gang or mideival knights taking over Anzio with a Panzer division.

captainjack
Sr. Colonel - Wirbelwind
Sr. Colonel - Wirbelwind
Posts: 1712
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2012 7:42 am

Re: which infantry do you prefer (pre-1943)

Post by captainjack » Wed Jun 04, 2014 2:41 am

I agree Gerbirgsjagers are very good early on. In 1939 I often end up with a lot - later on some get converted to other units if they get suitable heroes and most become other infantry when 43 rolls around.

I went through a phase of thinking cavalry were the best but I lost too many due to the low ground defence. Bikies aren't a very good upgrade really - they must have a leaky fuel tank as they are always running out so they sit around while the poor infantry and cavalry go searching for more petrol, and when 43 comes around they (normally) don't have an upgrade to 43 Kradschutzen.

If you really like cavalry (or bikies) and start missing them it's not all that difficult to create 43 Cavalry as an extra unit - I am very low down the modding skills scale but I managed to create 43 Kradschutzen by following advice in the scenario design discussions on how to add an extra unit. Think how many extra grenades, panzerfausts (and rocks for the gun barrels) you can carry with the help of a horse....

And well done for beating up tanks with your green gebirgsjagers - using terrain to turn the odds in your favour is definitely a good skill.

JimmyC
Sergeant Major - Armoured Train
Sergeant Major - Armoured Train
Posts: 596
Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 10:31 am

Re: which infantry do you prefer (pre-1943)

Post by JimmyC » Wed Jun 04, 2014 2:47 am

Interesting post F. Here is my experience so far (currently at Streets of Moscow):

Horse - Personally I never had a horse in my core, although I think they could be useful in ’39 and ’40. In my next playthrough I will probably try 1 out and see how he does.

Fallschmjaeger – these guys are tough to use in later scenarios. 100% agree with your strategy of flying via stealth. Its also worth taking advantage of rain as you know they can’t be attacked in the air. Whilst they add an extra dimension to the game that can be quite fun, I can’t help but think I’d get more use (and lose less prestige) just taking other units to accompany my main force.

Bridge engineer – never had one and never really wanted one.

Infantry – I run with a lot of infantry early on and quite like their MA3. Anyone who gets +M hero upgrades to a Grenadier. You can always convert them to Gebirgsjager at little cost if you want.

Gebirgsjager – I usually just have 1 or 2 of these guys. Its enough, as some maps they aren’t needed and infantry are cheaper.

Grenadier – I really like these guys, but M2 feels like such a restriction. I’m guessing you get the best use out of these guys on defensive missions where they can play more of a static role. Pray for a +MA hero on them!

Pioniere – I like these guys as their traits (ignore entrenchment and +5 when assaulting forts/cities) is really awesome. MA2 is a bummer, but that’s why you equip them with trucks/tracks.

Bike – These guys are good at racing ahead to capture unoccupied hexes. But this also leads them to generally being exposed and taking hits. I really feel they should be given recon ability or something similar. I have one in my core and try to only race him ahead if he will finish his turn in close terrain (or supported by artillery). But he still gets hit a lot and usually ends each scenario on <5 hp’s.

A note on transport – its talked about more in other threads, but I generally follow the rule that M3 units can walk on foot, whilst M2 units get trucks/halftracks. This seems to work pretty well for me so far.

jkombae
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Feb 10, 2014 3:11 pm

Re: which infantry do you prefer (pre-1943)

Post by jkombae » Fri Jun 13, 2014 12:41 pm

In DLC 39/40 Fallschirmjäger and Gebirgsjäger are the best choice, I think. In the woods and mountains of Poland and Norway, Gebirgsjäger are great. The Fallschirmjäger allow you to capture hexes that you might not reach in time with the rest of your core units. The ability to break fortifications is usefull in Belgium and France. I had one Pioniers only, the FJ were always good enough (and trained very well). And: Pioniers had much to high causalities even with high experience. There was no battle without loosing 1-2 (even if the enemy unit was completly destroyed and terrain was on my side)

Later on I converted most of both unit types to Grenadiers - Tanks become to strong and occur in high numbers. I currently have 3x 2*FJ and 2x 5*Gebirgsjäger left in my core. The Gebirgsjäger are great with the +3 movement heros, even in 44/45.

Scholomancer
Corporal - Strongpoint
Corporal - Strongpoint
Posts: 51
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 7:35 pm

Re: which infantry do you prefer (pre-1943)

Post by Scholomancer » Sat Jun 14, 2014 12:19 am

As most of the Pre-43 scenarios are attack-oriented I've preferred the Gebirgsjagers. In this game infantry is for the close terrain and the tanks are for the open hexes. The Gerbirgjagers have a great balance of good movement rates and great attack against infantry, and do decent in close combat against vehicles. They also have a high ammo count so they can keep up the pace with the tanks. With any infantry they shouldn't be in the open hexes without heavy artillery or tank coverage so I'm never worried about their hard attack.

'43 and onwards most scenarios are defensive and tank heavy, so I'm forced to use the Grenadiers. With as much armour you face in the GC East scenarios it's impossible to keep any other infantry in the field for very long. I usually upgrade all infantry with movement heroes into Grenadiers for the 3 movement, and leave anything else as Gerbirgjagers and usually on my reserve, nondeployed list until the specific scenarios that call for infantry-heavy requirements.

Post Reply

Return to “Panzer Corps”