Giving the US a go in the Long Campaign (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns



Message

OG_Gleep -> Giving the US a go in the Long Campaign (8/7/2008 9:20:17 PM)

I tend to gravitate towards the Germans in every game I play, so when I went to setup a new game using the US I was a bit......confused? about how to put together an effective core force.

The Force Org is a bit different, as the German OOB is pretty intuitive.

Anyhow, seeking advice on how to create an effective core that can grow, and input on which choices in the units are best.

I like a very strong armor, with effective mobile infantry and some units that can both shock and awe.

If anyone can give me some pointers on how to put an effective core together, and a guideline on what the primary focus is to upgrade after battles I'd be most appriciated.

I know this is a very vague question, I am just at a loss here.



KG Erwin -> RE: Giving the US a go in the Long Campaign (8/7/2008 10:03:01 PM)

You mean the US Army, not the Marines, right? Well, there are a couple of ready-made Combat Teams/Task Forces in the Enhanced version of the USA OOB. These give a pretty good representation of a notional core force element.

The "shock and awe" element primarily comes from our fast-response off-board arty and from our airpower (when it's available).



OG_Gleep -> RE: Giving the US a go in the Long Campaign (8/8/2008 2:33:37 AM)

Ya sorry I realised that the two were seperated when I tried to plan a Flags of our Fathers/Band of Brothers type force in North Africa.

I normally play Axis in wargames, and having just jumped out of a German campaign to take a break I was looking at the ready made ones, and the make up was almost alien in structure I was so used to what I was playing. The way spotting and such works I wasn't confident I could use the shermans superior speed/and or numbers as the conventional wargames require you to do to counter german armor, which is the same school of thought that is normally applied to RTT's as well.


Main goal is to put an effective force together that won't get trashed. I get attatched to my units and I let out a doh everytime a vet gets smoked, not b/c its one less asset, but because its an asset that has been with me for a period of time. I'd rather have a full list of M10's and get into a shooting war then watch half my shermans get smoked each game. When I get that out of my system I enjoy trying to replicate previous successes with a more accurate list.



Kuokkanen -> RE: Giving the US a go in the Long Campaign (8/8/2008 5:38:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: OG_Gleep

Anyhow, seeking advice on how to create an effective core that can grow, and input on which choices in the units are best.

I like a very strong armor, with effective mobile infantry and some units that can both shock and awe.

It also depends how big core force you want to play with. Anyways last time I gave run for Long Compaign (over year ago) with US, I put together... I think most of it was 3 tank companies (2 Sherman, 1 Stuart) and 2 mechanized infantry companies. Now infantry companies had some halftracks with 37 mm cannon, and those were tank destroyers (lol). I replaced them with Wolverines at first opportunity. Greyhounds started replacing jeeps and other light cars. At the time I thought bazooka is cooler weapon than mortar, so mortar teams got replaced by 'zooks. I also had several batteries of AA weapons (HMGs, 90 mms, and some AA halftracks too) and artillery.

Now something to consider: Sherman isn't as good as Panzer IV with long 75 mm. Heck, even Panzer III J+ beats Sherman in long range stand & deliver slug fest! I should had bought couple AT battieries too [:@]



vahauser -> RE: Giving the US a go in the Long Campaign (8/10/2008 4:11:02 AM)

OG_Gleep,

I think that you will quickly learn that the US artillery is so strong that you will defeat the computer too easily in a Long Campaign.  You will have to come up with a way to handicap yourself against the computer.



Oldguard1970 -> RE: Giving the US a go in the Long Campaign (8/19/2008 6:27:34 PM)

Vahauser offers good advice. A human player can build a force that dominates the AI. In order to keep the game fun, I have to impose handi-caps.

The first "handi-cap" isn't really a handi-cap. It is an attempt to maintain some sense of historical accuracy. Buy forces that match the organizations used at the time. (One can buy ahistorical forces that work better together from the perspective of the game. This self-imposed requirement keeps me from doing that.)

The second handi-cap I use is to create an imaginary intervention from my ommander. "Colonel, you are required to maintain at least a combat team (or company) (or platoon, etc) as a reserve. Do not let that reserve become engaged without my permission. I want to keep a string on your reserve force in case I need it elsewhere." That causes me to deploy the reserve force in the rear and forces me to fight my battle with fewer assets.




Alby -> RE: Giving the US a go in the Long Campaign (8/19/2008 8:08:36 PM)

play more user made campaigns IMO for more challenging games.
[:)]



Five_of_Swords -> RE: Giving the US a go in the Long Campaign (11/26/2008 8:00:47 AM)

yeah...I think you have to be OK with having a lot of tanks die to play the US. What I love about the germans or russians is that you can play an entire campaign without ever losing any of your tank crew that fought in the first battle. I dont think the US can do this. Still, the stuart is a really great tank and US armor will do the job, even though many will die.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.84375