What's the Best Force Structure?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

What's the Best Force Structure?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Advanced Tactics Series >> The War Room >> What's the Best Force Structure?

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

What's the Best Force Structure? - 9/18/2008 4:22:13 AM

Ike1947

Posts: 21
Joined: 4/10/2005
From: Texas
Status: offline

New to A.T. and completed only two random scenarios vs. the AI+, using a map with 40% land and towns x 40. I'm not having any trouble in particular as the AI's weaknesses are mentioned in these forums. But, looking at the future with PBEM games against you lads, I'm trying to figure out a good infantry, armor, etc unit composition.

In these two games, I'm using 40 Rifle, 4 Mortar and 6 MG (trying to stay under a stack of 50 here) for my infantry units. I've only researched up to light tanks and my armor units are 5 Lt Tanks each, also 50 stack points. This seems to work well, since it keeps me from having to worry about road congestion and allows me to stack two full strength units together in a hex. Plus it gives me a standard package for using sea and air transport. I confess I've made up a para unit with 50 paras, six MG and 6 Mortars plus an air transportation squadron of five transports to give me a full unit drop capability; fly in the weapons later as they're in a separate unit.

What is the experience with force composition in PBEM? Or, aren't random scenarios being played PBEM? Also, related question: in Russia 1941 and in the other scenarios, can you create your own unit composition as you can in the random scenarios?

This game is quite enjoyable against the AI, not challenging much but fun, and I'm looking forward to PBEM. Thanks for your answers and comments.

[Edit: Never mind; I used the search feature as I should have first and found some ideas from that. Thanks.]

< Message edited by Ike -- 9/18/2008 7:57:32 PM >

_____________________________

" ... it is only those who have never heard a shot, never heard the shriek and groans of the wounded and lacerated ... that cry aloud for more blood, more vengeance, more desolation"

Post #: 1

RE: What's the Best Force Structure? - 9/20/2008 9:52:36 AM

Grymme

Posts: 1821
Joined: 12/16/2007
Status: offline

Some thoughts on force composition.

The more i play AT the more i feel that force composition is very situation based. Different situations demand different solutions, and its very rare that you are able to field exactly the force that you would like to. There are also huge differences in playing the AI or another player. Also you cant really say that you will have 50 stackpoints or less. In some scenarios resources are very limited. In others resources are abundant.

Generally for defensive infantry corps i use
70 % Rifles/SMG:s
10-20 % MG:s
10-20% AT-guns
fill up with horses if need be.

For attacking infantry corps i use
60 % Rifle/SMG
10 % MG:s
0-10 % scouts
20-30 % mortars (one of the best units in the game)
possibly 1-2 INF gun if possible.
Fill up with best available transport (generally horses)

For armoured units
As many and heavy armoured units as possible.
Fill up with
40 % mortars
20-30 % MG:s
30-40 % Rifles/SMG:s/Scouts

Another reflection i make when i look at for example the russian scenarios is that good players tend to make big stacks with something like 80-90% fighters and only 10-10% divebombers.

(in reply to Ike1947)

Post #: 2

RE: What's the Best Force Structure? - 10/4/2008 10:35:32 PM

mcv

Posts: 20
Joined: 7/14/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grymme

Another reflection i make when i look at for example the russian scenarios is that�good players tend to make big stacks with something like 80-90% fighters and only 10-10% divebombers.�

Any idea why they'd do that? It seems to me like the fighter/divebomber ratio is very dependent on the amount of fighter opposition you're likely to face. If you're fighting an air war, yes, you need lots of fighters, but if your opponent has only a handful of fighters, wouldn't it be a waste to build so many fighters rather than divebombers?

I haven't played any PBMs yet, so I have no idea what's good against humans, but I do have a few rules for myself:

1: Anything that might get attacked, needs bullet catchers (rilfemen) in order to protect the more expensive units.
2: In a WaW scenario, SS units need to be on the frontlines fighting. I love building SS Panzer Korps.
3: Defensive units need mostly infantry, MGs and some defense against tanks.
4: Attackers need tanks and infantry, with a good mix of other support units: mortarts (usually up to 10% for me, perhaps I should use more mortars), bazookas if the enemy has lots of tanks, and lately I've been adding one or two infantry guns, but I'm not sure what effect that has. MGs aren't necessary unless the unit can expect a counter attack.
5: Rifles and tanks on open terrain, SMGs in dense terrain.
6: Halftracks in open terrain, horses in heavy forests and hills with the occasional road (without roads, infantry on foot is as fast as horses)

So far, it usually ends up something like this:

30-40 Rifle
2-3 tanks
5 mortars
3 bazookas
2-5 MGs
halftracks for everyone

For units that need to attack fortified positions, I use SMGs instead of rifles, and add a bunch of extra mortars.

Occasionally I try something different, with lots of tanks and some cannon fodder, or I add some armoured cars into the mix. Grymme's post above suggests that perhaps I need a lot more mortars.

I've also figured out that if the enemy has lots of tank destroyers, don't bother bringing tanks. Instead, attack with just infantry and lots of bazookas.

Always protect expensive units (bazookas, mortars, artillery) with cheap warm bodies: riflemen.

If you have the mobility and can deal with the micromanagement, specialised units are cool. If you play it right, you can use the right tool for every job: block counter attacks with infantry+MGs+AT guns, attack with tanks+mortars+rifle/SMG (as appropriate for terrain). Having some scouts nearby to chase fleeing enemies into dense terrain is also very useful. Scouts and armoured cars help with spotting enemy units, etc. Problem is: specialised units means a lot of extra hassle, keeping track of what units are where, which is best for what, etc. Not every unit is the same, and finding the right one and making sure each front has the correct mix, is a hassle.

(in reply to Grymme)

Post #: 3

RE: What's the Best Force Structure? - 11/11/2008 6:03:59 AM

Twotribes

Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline

I build the following generally.

Infantry

35 Infantry, 5 machine Guns, 5 mortars, 5 bazookas, 5 horses

also add 1 AT gun ( remove the bazookas) and 1 Infantry gun, add 1 horse.

If I can afford halftracks this mix with 3 halftracks instead of 6 horses.

Armor

4 Armored Cars, 2 Light Tanks, 10 infantry, 5 machine Guns, 5 Mortars

2 Armored Cars, 2 Light Tanks, 2 Medium Tanks, 10 Infantry, 5 machine Guns, 5 Mortars

2 Armored Cars, 2 Light Tanks, 1 Tank Destroyer, 10 Infantry, 5 Machine Guns, 5 Mortars

Artillery

4 Artillery, 10 infantry, 1 AT Gun, 3 trucks ( or more likely 6 horses)

Air

5 fighters, 5 Dive Bombers

5 Level Bombers, 5 Fighters

1 Transport, 1 Fighter

If you can afford scouts , in the armor Units replace 5 Infantry with 5 scouts.

(in reply to mcv)

Post #: 4

RE: What's the Best Force Structure? - 11/13/2008 9:00:27 AM

LazyBoy

Posts: 190
Joined: 5/7/2005
Status: offline

This is good information, but could you guy tell me why you use the above formation's.

One option I have thought of, is to use engineers instead of rifles.
Reason being you can build fortications, roads as you go, they appear to fight as well as rifles ( be it a bit more expensive).

(in reply to Twotribes)

Post #: 5

RE: What's the Best Force Structure? - 11/13/2008 9:30:45 AM

Twotribes

Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LazyBoy

This is good information, but could you guy tell me why you use the above formation's.

One option I have thought of, is to use engineers instead of rifles.
Reason being you can build fortications, roads as you go, they appear to fight as well as rifles ( be it a bit more expensive).

Can not upgrade engineers.

The magic number I believe is 100, after 100 stack points you degrade the fighting ability. I try to stay under that.

(in reply to LazyBoy)

Post #: 6

RE: What's the Best Force Structure? - 11/13/2008 2:58:19 PM

Widell

Posts: 913
Joined: 4/27/2005
From: Trollh�ttan, Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes
Can not upgrade engineers.

This is valid for stock games (maybe?). There's nothing preventing a tech tree with upgrades for engineers as for any other unit type.

_____________________________

(in reply to Twotribes)

Post #: 7

RE: What's the Best Force Structure? - 11/13/2008 7:43:49 PM

Jeffrey H.

Posts: 3154
Joined: 4/13/2007
From: San Diego, Ca.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LazyBoy

This is good information, but could you guy tell me why you use the above formation's.

One option I have thought of, is to use engineers instead of rifles.
Reason being you can build fortications, roads as you go, they appear to fight as well as rifles ( be it a bit more expensive).

I find the engineers are even more vulnerable than run-o-the-mill squishies.

I don't think this is a good tactic to use them instead of rifle/smg troops.

_____________________________

History began July 4th, 1776. Anything before that was a mistake.

Ron Swanson

(in reply to LazyBoy)

Post #: 8

RE: What's the Best Force Structure? - 11/13/2008 7:45:00 PM

Jeffrey H.

Posts: 3154
Joined: 4/13/2007
From: San Diego, Ca.
Status: offline

Ike - Go on over to the "opponents wanted" forum and sign up for Arditi's random game. Sounds to me like you're ready.

_____________________________

History began July 4th, 1776. Anything before that was a mistake.

Ron Swanson

(in reply to Ike1947)

Post #: 9

RE: What's the Best Force Structure? - 11/13/2008 10:52:15 PM

Ike1947

Posts: 21
Joined: 4/10/2005
From: Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeffrey H.

Ike - Go on over to the "opponents wanted" forum and sign up for Arditi's random game. Sounds to me like you're ready.

Well, I may seem ready, but I don't feel like I am. Well, have to take the plunge one day, anyway. What kind of turn rate does he expect?

_____________________________

" ... it is only those who have never heard a shot, never heard the shriek and groans of the wounded and lacerated ... that cry aloud for more blood, more vengeance, more desolation"

(in reply to Jeffrey H.)

Post #: 10

RE: What's the Best Force Structure? - 11/14/2008 2:57:43 AM

Jeffrey H.

Posts: 3154
Joined: 4/13/2007
From: San Diego, Ca.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ike

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeffrey H.

Ike - Go on over to the "opponents wanted" forum and sign up for Arditi's random game. Sounds to me like you're ready.

Well, I may seem ready, but I don't feel like I am. Well, have to take the plunge one day, anyway. What kind of turn rate does he expect?

Dunno but you can ask him. I would normally expect a turn every few days. It seems like a lot but once you get into it, you'll be hanging on the edge of your seat for your next turn. If it's a really big game with lots of players then it might need to go faster.

It's not that big of a deal, in fact I think the initial placement pretty much decides the outcome.

_____________________________

History began July 4th, 1776. Anything before that was a mistake.

Ron Swanson

(in reply to Ike1947)

Post #: 11