units never used

[Lut]

Hi Community.

I discovered that i never use some units - doesnt matter if it is pc vanilla, ak or west.

For me it is a shame because there are some nice historical vehicles I do not see any use of - maybe it could inspire the developer to change some stats.

for example:
- Nashorn, never used because of low def. stats and high price
- JagdPz IV/48 and 70 - stats of the /48 are nowhere .. /70 better alternatives available
- ME163B - high price and better alternatives available
- Ta 152h - never used, except of the bonus unit in pc west... better alternatives available
- SdKfz 250/1 - high price, poor def.stats (like all halftrack ... same stats than the heavy carrier SdKfz7 )... plus mobility not really a must have in GC

What do you think?

[giantemu]

likewise, many tanks models i won't use because they don't really represent a meaningful upgrade.

[hmshood]

yep....alotta them early PZ IV's don't match up well (cost wise) to upgraded PZ 111's...

[captainjack]

A good question.
Units I have never bought:

AA
German 20 and 37mm AA. However, I use the mobile AA in AK and and have switched an 88 with +4D to Sdkfz7/2, as it had a chance of surviving when in a more exposed location. Usually if you get a +1 range or +1 move on an 88 this will be almost as good as the 7/2. In AC the auxiliary AA is handy but I wouldn't buy it because unit slots are pretty tight.

AT
Hetzer, and the Jagdpazer IV - lousy stats and no benefits. If the Hetzer had high initiative or camo trait or awesome GD to reflect the low profile and ease of concealment it might be worthwhile. Nashorn (I don't like the low defence, though I've thought of it for the high attack stats). The 2 pounder and 6 pounter portee mounts in AC would be attractive, but they arrive too late to be useful, though I have used a Deacon, which has slightly better attack and OK armour and at 3* or so the AT bonus makes it pretty dangerous.

ARTY
75mm Arty - I prefer the range and hitting power of the heavier towed guns, or the armour of the Stugs. Wespe - too light by the time it's available.
In AC, the mix of British arty provides more of a trade off, and the AT switch makes them worth keeping longer.

AIR
Do17z - range too short. I normally start with He111 to get experience for naval attacks and upgrade to a JU88 when prestige allows. If short of prestige, I get a Ju88 to keep it company in the Norwegian naval scenarios. In AK, I avoid the Italian biplane, and in AC I won't buy British tac bombers that don't have air attack capability, because even with SE air units I need every one to be able to join mass attacks. I'm moving that way with DLCs since 1.21 makes a large air force less viable.

Tanks
Panzer 2. I accidentally used the original Panzer 2c in an AK scenario thinking it was the Panzer 2F recon unit. I didn't bother reforming it when the inevitable happened. Incidentally, both Panzer 2C and 2F cost the same, despite the recon Panzer 2F having better attack and defence stats and recon move and better spotting.
In AC, I don't use Valentines - the Churchill is tougher and can hit harder and the Valentine AD isn't enough to compensate. I only use crusaders if really short of prestige and can't afford an upgrade. In AK I quite like the Grant for its relatively good CD and good SA for taking out entrenched soft units but it seems less useful in AC, and have never considered buying a Vickers light tank. I used to upgrade the Panzer 1s in the first DLC to the 1B for the extra initiative, and used them until destroyed or the 3 or 4 was available for upgrade, but my recent experience of upgarding to a 38t has been quite good, despite the poor upgrade path. It can always stay in reserve until
East 44 when having 2 or 3* units available to upgrade to Panthers and Tigers comes in handy.


Infantry
I rarely buy standard Infantry once Grenadiers are available, though will occasionally buy one to develop experience as the 3 move means they can be useful without a truck. In AK I upgrade the Italians to Berseglieri or Alpini at the first opportunity.

Transport
Slower units usually get trucks because the benefits of halftracks are limited and while maybe worth the initial cost, the constant extra prestige for reinforcements is a pain. Faster units (3+) usually have to walk. However At some point I will often upgrade to halftracks (usually just before Vyazma and the mud), or in AK or AC when rough terrain and a lack of roads cause too much annoyance. When replacing transport I often use the cheat code to refund prestige - always if I buy a Half Track for one unit then add a truck to another. I occasionally use the fast halftrack for bridge engineers as they need to be next to rivers to be any use, so the faster they arrive better. Otherwise they are an expensive luxury. I have once used the armoured carrier in AC (Kangaroo) but have mixed views at present.

That took longer than I expected and needed more thought!

[BiteNibbleChomp]

Panzer IV H+J
By then I have Tiger Tanks! (and Panthers)

All Str. Bombers - Not enough damage

Recon - Die quickly (other than 222 and 232)

- BNC

[Molve]

I discovered that i never use some units - doesnt matter if it is pc vanilla, ak or west.

For me it is a shame because there are some nice historical vehicles I do not see any use of - maybe it could inspire the developer to change some stats.

First off, not all units need to be actively desirable. The wide variety of units makes it interesting to create scenarios - throw in an auxiliary unit the player would never dream of buying and see how he or she uses it!

Second, you're not alone. There are lots of variant equipment files that testify to this.

Third, this is a game, and as such, it's a game about specifically one thing: panzers on the offensive. Some units you wouldn't want to upgrade, because it would make the game's main aim less fun: that's why quality (mostly German) armor is so exaggerated at the expense of nearly everything else.

Fourth, it's still a game. Even if you wanted to make the "perfect" equipment file, you can't. Simply because the game does not contain enough variables to simulate reality well enough to allow the finer nuances between different sorts of equipment. Mechanical reliability, cross-country performance, crew protection, on-board radios... the list can be made very long indeed.

Fifth some advantages can't even be modeled well in a game of PC's scope. Scarcity and supply are the two big ones I'm thinking of now. For instance, the US fielded mostly tanks of decidedly average quality. This translates less well to a game like PC, which is about few but strong panzer units.



Point is, no single equipment list can satisfy everybody - it's not a bug that some units feel "worthless", it's a feature!

[BiteNibbleChomp]

In my War of the World, I have made a 3.7cm Flak unit be part of the Axis army. I last heard that they are probably the least used of all Flaks!

- BNC

[shawkhan]

Until/unless there is a modification to the core value of some of these exotic/ less effective units no one trying to succeed is going to field many of these.
Units could be made to be worth only a fraction of a core slot based on the actual numbers used in the war for instance. It seems a shame that Flak is seldom used by most players when it played such an integral part in the real war. Hetzers, Marders and yes, even Nashorns would add more variety to the game. It is too bad that there can't be variable opponent's OOBs based upon the value of one's forces, a little like the soft prestige cap.
Anyone trying to progress through the game past 1943 simply Must field ahistorically strong forces if he wishes to survive. Personally, I wouldn't mind fighting hordes of actual T34s instead of the ridiculous numbers of KV-85s and ISIs to be found in the later scenarios. Then it might make sense to field mostly PzIVs and some of the interesting AT vehicles from 1943 on.
I think it would be neat if there was an historical track that used more historical forces. Having only Tigers and Panthers from 1943 on makes the later scenarios much less interesting to me.
As it is, I find myself often re-starting the campaign from the beginning after 1943 as I don't find the later scenarios that much fun.

[Naxor]

As it is, I find myself often re-starting the campaign from the beginning after 1943 as I don't find the later scenarios that much fun.

This. I never have interest to continue past year 1943.

[Iscaran]

As much as I agree to the fact that I would really LIKE to use historical "forces" the much I must confess that it is crucial in later campaign scenarios to field "best" units as an army.

Without reexplaining most of the things already posted I THINK:
the only "solution" to this problem would be by using 2 (additional) factors:
-Unit availability (measured in number of "core" slots used up by the vehicle)
-Price should be allowed to "change"

What I would want to achieve with theses two additional "rules" is for example the following:

It is 1942 and the Tiger type arrives....BUT it costs i.e. 800 Prestige and uses up 4 unit slots....you could of course buy instead 4xPz IVs for 500 prestige each which use up only 1 unit slot each.

Or even just "limit" the number of purchasable units of a certain type and allow that number to "grow" by time....means 1942 1 Tiger....early 1943 2 tigers, mid 43 3 tigers etc.

In 1943 also the "Price" of a tiger could for example drop to 700 or the price of the PzIV would drop even lower to for example 350 as well as for example the number of slots used up might be changed by time...

Though Id like the "players choice" more with the above restriction that units can have a different "cost" of slots.

Also creating a campaign path with FIXED unit types could be interesting to play - but not sure it takes away the players choice too much IMHO.

[BiteNibbleChomp]

As it is, I find myself often re-starting the campaign from the beginning after 1943 as I don't find the later scenarios that much fun.

This. I never have interest to continue past year 1943.

I stopped playing the eastern front after '43. Wrote down the core force and then cheat coded it into '44 West

- BNC

[hmshood]

Playing in GC '44 is very challenging....I like sitting back contemplating "so this is what they faced..or wonder that/this happened to the Germans"...

I cannot believe how time goes by on these scenario's.....as to Units not used.....some I have been compelled to deploy (from reserves) in the 1944 campaign due to lack of prestige...THAT folks is can be interesting...every try an outdated Sherman to fill a gap in a defensive line?...If you do..turn down the background music and listen to the Russians laughing as they approach....

hmshood

[Egge]

Panzer IV H+J
All Str. Bombers - Not enough damage
- BNC

Strategic Bombers are *very* useful. Not because of the damage they deal, but because they suppress targets very well. Try attacking a unit first with a strategic bomber and you will find a notable difference.

I usually have a least as many startegic bombers as tactical bombers.

[ThorHa]

Later in the war, when only Ju87G make real dents into enemy armour, experienced overstrength strategic bombers tend to be even more useful, except you convert your tactical bombers to a kind of secondary fighters by taking the Me410 or/and Fw190 F/G upgrade.

In my second dlc playhrough prior dlc 43 East I limited myself to just 2 real tactical bombers (Ju 87) but often tend to field 2 or 3 strategic bombers. They are more versatile. Rudel does not count, his +9 attack are an irreal exception.

Regards,
Thorsten

[MartyWard]

Panzer IV H+J
All Str. Bombers - Not enough damage
- BNC

Strategic Bombers are *very* useful. Not because of the damage they deal, but because they suppress targets very well. Try attacking a unit first with a strategic bomber and you will find a notable difference.

I usually have a least as many startegic bombers as tactical bombers.

Agree 100%. An IS 2 without ammo is worse than any Sherman!

[Forefall]

Agreed as well. I actually prefer no tactical bombers (excluding rudel of course) after 42 or 43, as strats suppression and ammo depletion is so powerful. Not to mention how crazy good they are against navy (which doesn't really make much sense to me, but whatever).

[MartyWard]

Agreed as well. I actually prefer no tactical bombers (excluding rudel of course) after 42 or 43, as strats suppression and ammo depletion is so powerful. Not to mention how crazy good they are against navy (which doesn't really make much sense to me, but whatever).

I usually keep a few Tac around but by 44 they are all capable of attacking other air units. The FW 190G can still dish out punishment to the right units, they tear up rocket launchers and any unit caught in travel mode in trucks or half tracks.

[BiteNibbleChomp]

Never seen a Str. Bomber supress by more than 1 - too little when a "Gridwerfer" (30cm Nebelwerf. 43) can do like -6 or something. Supply is never an issue for the enemy, as I rarely see him anywhere near 0. And -10 enemy prestige is useless in anything other than my global mod, as the enemy has 1000s.

Will stick with "Tiger + Arado Bomber + Me262 + Gridwerfer = War is Won"

- BNC

[MartyWard]

Never seen a Str. Bomber supress by more than 1 - too little when a "Gridwerfer" (30cm Nebelwerf. 43) can do like -6 or something. Supply is never an issue for the enemy, as I rarely see him anywhere near 0. And -10 enemy prestige is useless in anything other than my global mod, as the enemy has 1000s.

Will stick with "Tiger + Arado Bomber + Me262 + Gridwerfer = War is Won"

- BNC

If you get a decent Strat, 3-4 stars, you can suppress 9-10 points at a time and they have more ammo and range than artillery. They also takes shots away and an IS 2 without ammo is useless. They are well worth having.

[antoniocapo]

Krapshutzen something, guys on bikes. Terrible fuel efficiency and crappy defense.