|
zgrssd -> RE: What formations do people like to use? (2/7/2021 3:03:33 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: yutowap33
I don't have much experience with more advanced formations. Anyone want to try their hand at the pro/cons of
Infantry:
Grenadier, Siege Grenadier
Heavy MG, motorized/mechanized Heavy MG
Armor:
light/armor/heavy/destroyer
light grenadier/assault/Infantry
For Foot Formations:
All foot infantry is better in defense then offense. Usually the defense Combat value is twice. And Infantry can entrench like no other type of unit!
That being said, they tend to be cheap enough and have a strong enough offensive that you can use them on the attack. Into hard terrain, they migh be your only offensive option even.
Infantry - the unit with the lowest Metal and IP footprint. Also very cheap in ammo consumption too. It's main downsdie is that that they are recruited in bulk, so they are relatively "expensive" in Manpower and Food.
MG - they are like infantry, just way more focussed on soft defense then even them and a lot higher ammo consumption. They are expensive to deploy on offensives. That being said, with Automatic weapons and better armor the price differences mater less and less and they do have slightly more soft attack as well. So if some MG's get swept up in my attacks, I will not hesitate to use them for that. They do still fight somewhat better then infantry.
RPG - they are a bit like MG, except for Hard Targets and less heavily focussed on defense. High Hard-Attack and Hard-Defenses, with a high effective calibre for calibre calculation. Add that most Vehciles have lower HP vs infantry too.
Grenadier is Infantry with MG and RPG specialist units. This is the closest to a "universal" formation:
- high numbers of cheap Infantry
- MG for extra soft defense, but not so many you would worry to use them in a offense
- RPG to defend or attack against hard targets
Siege Grenadier adding Artillery to a Infantry unit is a wierd thing to do. If you use the Artillery for ranged attack, you can not use the Unit to attack with anymore - but I think the infantry parts can spend AP and save readiness for defense. They also bring a high calibre, but that one is cut by 3 in ranged attacks.
Artillery that you diffuse throug the units, is intended to be used in the actuall direct combat. Their biggest strenght is volume of fire and bringing a surprisingly high calibre to the fight. Both make them a lot more usefull during defense then offense. At the same time, as backline units they are unlikely to die in offenses. The main issues are ammo consumption and collerteral damage in offense.
Heavy MG shifts additional subunits from Infantry to MG. So it can give you a lot of additional Soft-Defense. If you have no issuse throwing MG's into offenses, it can even give you extra soft-offensive power. But really, defense sounds like it's intended role.
Motorized Heavy MG being motorized means the unit can travel further and keep more AP and Readiness for defense.
At the same time it looses any ability to move into high mountains without roads, one of the things Infantry is needed for.
The biggest issue is that for now, Motorizsation doubles the manpower needs for all Infantry formations.
Unless you need the motorisation to keep up with Tanks or use maneuver warfare, why not just make 2 units that can be in 2 palces at once instead?
It costs less fuel, a bit more ammo but is propably still cheaper in IP.
Armor:
One of hte biggest weaknesses of Infantry, is that their guns count as only 20mm for Callibre Calculation. So any armor starting with 25mm will given Infantry some level of callibre calculation penalty.
Even the better infantry armors give a relevant calibre calculation penalties to the weaker weapons. Wich means agaisnt better armor, you need Artillery or tanks with Howitzers.
A light tank with high callibre Howitzer and decent armor, can propably slaugther every infantry in any terrain it can drive into - combat penalties be damned. Unless they got RPG's, AT guns (infantry onr on Tanks).
Antitank-Tanks are genereally better left to bigger Tanks. They can carry a higher callibre and more armor, wich is much more usefull in Tank v Tank fighting.
Assault Guns and Tank Destroyers are less-offensive/more defensvie minded and cheaper versions of baseline tank the are based on.
Mixing Tanks into Infantry really helps with having them around in defense. But at the cost of preventing the unit from maneuvering well in hard terrain. Nevermind the huge fuel and ammo consumption.
|
|
|
|
