quote:

ORIGINAL: zook08

A few comments and questions:

Trading 7 subs for one BB is not much of a victory.
Why do you build so many trains?
Where's your problem in the east? In the screenshots, each of your units has a 10:1 advantage against every Russian stack.
I'm playing WaW, too (different version), but I haven't run into manpower problems yet (in 1941). But anyway, building 300+ Rifles each turn can obviously cause a problem. IMO, one mortar for 300 infantry is not enough. Build 1 for every 10 Inf.
Foot troops are mostly useless. How many of your units are mobile (having trucks or horses)?
Don't you build SMG troops? SMG gets a huge bonus in urban terrain. They attack and defend cities. Rifles are only good in open terrain.

Oh, and I forgot: are you playing vs. AI+ or AI++?

quote:

ORIGINAL: zook08

That Sevastopol screeenie tells it all. You attack with nothing but infantry and some Paks, which are only useful in defense. That has no punch at all, and is very ineffective. You want lots of SMG, mortars(!) and maybe some infantry guns, if you can spare the money to buy transport for them. Take a closer look at the combat system, and the attack/defense strengths of each type. I don't claim to be an AT expert, but this is how I use the different types:

Rifle - screens your hard-hitting units
SMG - defends and attacks cities
Mortar - your *primary* infantry killer. At least 1 for every 10 infantry.
Inf Gun - too expensive, good for attacking cities
Tank - to attack in open terrain
Machineguns - defend cities
AT Gun - for defense of critical points only
Bazooka - very few, and only to defend cities.
Engineer - they build stuff. They never, ever fight, and are always motorized.

Last but not least: mobility is the key. Try to motorize/horseyrize as many units as you can.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

zook08,

In WaW v32, the supply costs for motorized units are extraordinarily high. If you try to field an army like you mention, you will have a very hard time feeding it. Especially during the Winter.

quote:

ORIGINAL: zook08

It's a question of effectiveness. Your foot troops spend most of their time moving slowly from one place to another, eating supplies and not doing anything useful, i.e. killing enemy units. You want *each* unit to fight the enemy in *each* turn!

All tank divisions MUST be motorized. 4 medium tanks, 40 infantry, 10 mortars, 3 trucks. Halftracks, if you have money to spare.
At least 2/3 of your infantry divisions MUST be motorized or horse-drawn. 40 infantry, 10 mortars, 5 horses.
Recon units - 3 Armored Cars, 15 Scouts. Almost never fights, just tells you exactly what there is in an enemy stack. Kills off small cut-off leftover units, but doesn't take part in assaults.
Assault groups for cities and Heavy Forest terrain - SMG, infantry guns. The guns slow you down so much, I always transfer them around, using HQ capacity.
Defense units (for cities, and a few very important hexes where you don't want to attack) - SMG, MG, AT guns

quote:

ORIGINAL: srndac
IMHO SMG's are only good for ATTACKING towns and forests - in defense they are equal to rifles.

quote:

ORIGINAL: srndac

quote:

ORIGINAL: zook08

It's a question of effectiveness. Your foot troops spend most of their time moving slowly from one place to another, eating supplies and not doing anything useful, i.e. killing enemy units. You want *each* unit to fight the enemy in *each* turn!

All tank divisions MUST be motorized. 4 medium tanks, 40 infantry, 10 mortars, 3 trucks. Halftracks, if you have money to spare.
At least 2/3 of your infantry divisions MUST be motorized or horse-drawn. 40 infantry, 10 mortars, 5 horses.
Recon units - 3 Armored Cars, 15 Scouts. Almost never fights, just tells you exactly what there is in an enemy stack. Kills off small cut-off leftover units, but doesn't take part in assaults.
Assault groups for cities and Heavy Forest terrain - SMG, infantry guns. The guns slow you down so much, I always transfer them around, using HQ capacity.
Defense units (for cities, and a few very important hexes where you don't want to attack) - SMG, MG, AT guns

Loading infatry and mortars into trucks for mobility I can understand, but to load them on horses is a waste of resources if you ask me. Using them to transport guns is more than OK, though. (Also, I didn't see any MG's in those formations of yours..) [&:]
IMHO SMG's are only good for ATTACKING towns and forests - in defense they are equal to rifles. Infantry guns are valuable only when attacking cities and forts - use them with SMG's instead of mortars - with a horse for every gun, naturally.

Another thing: stacking is not same as weight. Different units are counted differently in both cases. Like horses giving you stack 1, weight 1 - while a truck gives you stack 0, weight 10. Cheers!

Well, there's my 2 cents... feel free to keep the change. [8D]

quote:

ORIGINAL: zook08

I know about the cost, I'm playing WaW v30a1 by PBEM, and I don't consider foot troops useful. I still have a few foot divisions in late '41, but I'm trying to provide at least some horses for them all.

Let's say you have 10 divisions, each with 40 rifle (add support weapons as you like, it doesn't change the picture). That's 40,000 production. They eat 800 supplies, or 1,600 production per turn. Now motorize a spearhead of 3, to keep pace with the tanks. That's an additional 9,000 prod. for trucks, and 720 prod./turn for supplies. Mount the other seven divisions, that's 5,600 for the horses and a lousy 112 per turn for supplies.

Next, tracked/wheeled units move 10 hexes/turn, mounted move 5/turn, foot move 3/turn. That's the road rate, but that's where you spend most of your time anyway.

Foot: cost you 40k and 1.6k per turn in supplies. Your army moves at a snail's pace of 3 hexes per turn.
Mobile (as above): cost you 54.6k and 2.4k/turn in supplies. Your army now moves *twice* as fast.

You can now concentrate your forces, attack at much better odds and suffer less casualties, cut off enemy units more easily, react quickly to counterattacks and often attack hexes from multiple directions because you can spare the AP to get into their flanks. And if you can capture Kiev in four turns instead of eight, that's 8,000 production the Russians don't get. 80 Rifles you don't have to kill because they are never produced.

Foot troops, on the other hand, often move 2 hexes towards the enemy but then don't have enough AP left to attack. Most of them spend at least half of their time marching instead of fighting. That's inefficient.

You don't even have to mobilize them all. If a few of them still walk, that's good enough. Break through the lines with your fast units, bypass weaker enemies and cut them off. Let them starve for a month, then finish them off with your footsloggers while your speadhead moves forward.

Essentially, foot troops are WW1. WW2 is about mobility. It's not about how many troops you *have*, but how many of them *fight each turn*.

In my PBEM game, I attacked Russia in June '41. I had a good advantage in numbers, partly because the western allies made supply mistakes in France, so I could build up a 3:1 garrison advantage over the Russians. With 40k in production, the Russians can produce maybe 200 Rifle and 2 tanks per turn. So the point is to attack them as soon as possible, and then not to waste any time before their production hits the higher gears in '42. In August, I had already taken Riga, Minsk, Kiev and Rostov and laid siege to Sevastopol. OK, I had the huge advantage of a strong army and the Russian player made some mistakes, but that success wouldn't have been possible, not even remotely, if I had not bought lots of trucks and horses, regardless of costs. The Russians didn't have any time to build up defenses in their rear, dig in and react to the Blitz. My fastest units advanced 12 hexes in three turns, fighting all the way. How do you do that with foot troops? You don't, and as a result, you soon face a solid frontline, and the offensive bogs down.

And if you're playing against AI+, with twice the normal production, time is twice as important.