Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Army Organization and Unit Compliment

 
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 >> Army Organization and Unit Compliment Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Army Organization and Unit Compliment - 11/13/2007 9:45:13 PM   
jrm16311

 

Posts: 9
Joined: 11/12/2007
Status: offline 		This topic might be ultra-geeky, but let's face it we are all geeks here.

I started playing with my buddy a few days after the game was released. We've played several scenarios and while learning all the "ins and outs" of the game I started thinking about how to best organize my forces to best optimize my supply lines and also best manage unit replacements. After doing some Google research, I decided not to reinvent the wheel and used something similar to the US Army structure, using four levels of HQ (Supreme, Army, Corp, and Division).

Reporting to each ground force Division HQ, I build several large formations as follows:
1 Heavy Armored Div.
5hv tanks, 10 med tanks, 5 AT, 50 rifle/SMG, 5 flak, x trucks
1 Light Armored/Calvary Div.
5 med tanks, 10 light tanks, 50 rifle/smg, 5 flak, x trucks
4 Mech. Infantry Div.
220 rifle/smg, 30mg, 30baz, 20mortar, 10 light tanks, 5 flak, 5 at-guns, x trucks
2 Mech. Infantry Reg. (for guarding the flanks)
50 rifle, 30mg, 5 at-gun, 5 light tanks, 5 flak, x trucks
1 Engineering Corp
20 rifle/smg, 100 eng, 5 flak, 5 at-gun, x trucks
1 Artillery Regiment
20 rifle/smg, 10 flak, 20 art.
1 Mt. Division (optional, infantry only so they can move through mountains...duh, hence the name)
10 scouts, 50 rifle/smg, 10 mg, 5 baz, 5 mortar, 20 eng


I also set up an Air Command HQ for each theater to support the ground forces Division HQ. These two are set up with large formations as follows:
1 Fighter Interception
10-20 fighers
2 Bomber Groups (with fighter escorts)
10 fighters, 20 bombers
1 Airlift Group
5-10 air transports
1-2 Airborne Infantry (paratroopers)
100-200 paratroopers

The other thing is that I've standardized the exact number of units each formation starts with, as you can see above, (still need some tweaking) and which I try to maintain by replacing as needed. I find this makes allocating replacements across the entire war map easier. I also find it helps adjusting production lines quickly because you know approximately how many of each unit is needed.

I'm wondering how other players here approach the game.

How do players organize themselves, Supreme HQ down to the individual formation?

What unit complement do players use for each formation type (armored, infantry, ect.)?

Do you guys find that using many smaller formations is better than using fewer large formations?

Feedback/input would be great.
Post #: 1
RE: Army Organization and Unit Compliment - 11/13/2007 10:33:28 PM   
tweber

 

Posts: 1411
Joined: 6/27/2007
Status: offline 		Couple of comments:

- I think a flat organization is best.  1 top level HQ to manage supply.  As many front level HQs to keep staffing ranges good.  Intermediate HQs cost pp which could be diverted to R&D
- I prefer less unit diversity.  From an R&D standpoint, you can go deeper down the tree.  I would rather have rifle 3 or 4 than a bunch of 2nd level infantry types.
- I would keep scouts separate.  If they are with others, they lose their hide bonus.
- I would avoid huge para corps.  I use paras frequently, but they are poor in combat and only work against empty hexes and hexes where you get a retreat result after an air strike.  However, it is good to have a reputation for using paras as it forces you oponent to defend in depth.   You also never know when you may need to do a jump to grab the last hex in an encirclement.  Paras have high option value, but you do not want to over invest.
- I also prefer fighters over flak as fighters can cover a much larger area.  If have a hopelessly inferior airforce (e.g., playing the Soviets in 1941), I prefer dispersing units instead of building up large flak concentrations.  I think flak is too 1 dimensional.

I like:

- 1 lt tank, 25 rifle, 1 truck (double or repeat many times)
- 5 artillery, 10 rifle, 3 truck (1 for every 5 of the above)
- 60 eng, 3 truck (1 for every front line HQ)

(in reply to jrm16311)
Post #: 2
RE: Army Organization and Unit Compliment - 11/14/2007 12:50:07 AM   
TPM

 

Posts: 349
Joined: 2/8/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tweber

Couple of comments:

- I think a flat organization is best.  1 top level HQ to manage supply.  As many front level HQs to keep staffing ranges good.  Intermediate HQs cost pp which could be diverted to R&D
- I prefer less unit diversity.  From an R&D standpoint, you can go deeper down the tree.  I would rather have rifle 3 or 4 than a bunch of 2nd level infantry types.
- I would keep scouts separate.  If they are with others, they lose their hide bonus.
- I would avoid huge para corps.  I use paras frequently, but they are poor in combat and only work against empty hexes and hexes where you get a retreat result after an air strike.  However, it is good to have a reputation for using paras as it forces you oponent to defend in depth.   You also never know when you may need to do a jump to grab the last hex in an encirclement.  Paras have high option value, but you do not want to over invest.
- I also prefer fighters over flak as fighters can cover a much larger area.  If have a hopelessly inferior airforce (e.g., playing the Soviets in 1941), I prefer dispersing units instead of building up large flak concentrations.  I think flak is too 1 dimensional.

I like:

- 1 lt tank, 25 rifle, 1 truck (double or repeat many times)
- 5 artillery, 10 rifle, 3 truck (1 for every 5 of the above)
- 60 eng, 3 truck (1 for every front line HQ)



Very interesting tweber...you keep things pretty light and simple. As far as the basic units you've outlined above, do you add anything to them? Mortars, machine guns, etc.? All those new units Vic created are just sitting there, waiting to be put into battle...

(in reply to tweber)
Post #: 3
RE: Army Organization and Unit Compliment - 11/14/2007 1:02:46 AM   
tweber

 

Posts: 1411
Joined: 6/27/2007
Status: offline
quote:

As far as the basic units you've outlined above, do you add anything to them? Mortars, machine guns, etc.? All those new units Vic created are just sitting there, waiting to be put into battle...


I like simple, mobile unit combinations. They allow you to go deeper in R&D trees.

(in reply to TPM)
Post #: 4
RE: Army Organization and Unit Compliment - 11/14/2007 3:10:38 AM   
SMK-at-work

 

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline 		Mortars and machineguns give power to an infantry unit at a much cheaper cost than tanks, and are cheap to upgrade.

Light tanks in particular are quickly made obsolete IMO.  They're a cheap tank & useful for as long as there's no great numbers of medium tanks, AT guns or bazooka's around.....but you get what you pay for and they're still a lot more expensive than foot units.  I have used them when they're all that's available, but they swiftly get supplanted by medium tanks and I hardly ever bother upgrading them past II.

(in reply to tweber)
Post #: 5
RE: Army Organization and Unit Compliment - 11/14/2007 4:30:59 AM   
rickier65

 

Posts: 14231
Joined: 4/20/2000
Status: offline 		I suspect Tweber has a good handle on most efficient organization, but just to let you know, Im working on a scenario covering early Avalanche operation andI'm working with either 3 or 4 levels for organization:

Supreme HQ being a Corp Level, then with Div HQ's and thne with Regt. HQ's. I'm doing this manily to sort out some of the editor capabilities, and also just for kicks. But Im enjoying it none the less.

Rick

(in reply to jrm16311)
Post #: 6
RE: Army Organization and Unit Compliment - 11/14/2007 5:39:09 AM   
tweber

 

Posts: 1411
Joined: 6/27/2007
Status: offline 		If you do have many levels of HQ organization, you may want to decrease HQ cost to 2 pp or a wily player will 'harvest' all the intermediate level HQs in the first round to get the extra pp.

(in reply to rickier65)
Post #: 7
RE: Army Organization and Unit Compliment - 11/14/2007 9:14:07 AM   
rickier65

 

Posts: 14231
Joined: 4/20/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tweber

If you do have many levels of HQ organization, you may want to decrease HQ cost to 2 pp or a wily player will 'harvest' all the intermediate level HQs in the first round to get the extra pp.


Good point, thanks
Rick

(in reply to tweber)
Post #: 8
RE: Army Organization and Unit Compliment - 11/14/2007 5:18:35 PM   
TPM

 

Posts: 349
Joined: 2/8/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tweber

If you do have many levels of HQ organization, you may want to decrease HQ cost to 2 pp or a wily player will 'harvest' all the intermediate level HQs in the first round to get the extra pp.


tweber, not sure what you mean by this. By 'harvest' do you mean disband? I wasn't aware that you receive pp's when you disband a unit?

(in reply to tweber)
Post #: 9
RE: Army Organization and Unit Compliment - 11/14/2007 5:50:03 PM   
tweber

 

Posts: 1411
Joined: 6/27/2007
Status: offline 		Yes, you receive the cost of the counter when you disband.  So, if you can disband a lot of HQs, it is worth it as they give 5 pp per pop.  This can be saved for later when you need more counters or spent immediately on R&D.

Note that a basic unit counter costs 1 pp which is the same as 5 rifle.  An HQ cost 5 pp which is the same cost as a lt tank and 5 rifle.  AT is fundamentally about resource optimization.  You do not want a lot of extraneous units, especially HQ.

(in reply to TPM)
Post #: 10
RE: Army Organization and Unit Compliment - 11/14/2007 6:35:12 PM   
Coolhnd1

 

Posts: 7
Joined: 11/6/2007
From: New Hampshire, USA
Status: offline 		I'm still working out how best to organize my units but one thing I've noticed in your initial organization is that you only include scouts in your Mountain unit. I think this is a mistake. I find scouts are essential in just about every unit. Particularly Tank units since these units, without scouts can frequently bump right up against enemy units but have no notion about the composition of those units. Getting good intellegance is half the battle in this game and it's why I try to get at least a few scouts in virtually any unit I create.



_____________________________

-- CoolHand

(in reply to tweber)
Post #: 11
RE: Army Organization and Unit Compliment - 11/14/2007 6:49:59 PM   
Banquet

 

Posts: 1184
Joined: 8/23/2002
From: England
Status: offline 		Hmm, some good idea's in this thread.

So far I've tended to keep it simple.

For an Infantry Division;

1* HQ (50 staff, 20 rifle)
3* Infantry regiment (30 Rifle, 20SMG, 3MG, 2 Inf Gun, 2 Bazooka, 3 Mortar)
1* Armoured regiment (5 Light tanks, 25 rifle)
1* Engineer regiment (40 engineers, 20 rifle)
1* Artillery regiment (10 Art, 20 Rifle)
1* AT regiment (10 AT, 20 Rifle)

All these units get sufficient trucks to carry the equipment. The HQ's get an additional 10 trucks. That really helps with mobility.

For an Armoured Division I have;

1* HQ (same as above)
5* Armoured regiment (5 medium tanks, 25 Rifles)
1* Engineers (same as above)
1* Artillery (same as above)

This generally seems to work well for me.. but I'll try some of the idea's mentioned above. I hadn't thought about adding scouts, but it sounds good! :)

< Message edited by Banquet -- 11/14/2007 6:51:01 PM >

_____________________________

http://i904.photobucket.com/albums/ac241/norfolktraveller/command-banner_zps8a55d0fa.jpg

(in reply to Coolhnd1)
Post #: 12
RE: Army Organization and Unit Compliment - 11/14/2007 7:37:54 PM   
TPM

 

Posts: 349
Joined: 2/8/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tweber

Yes, you receive the cost of the counter when you disband.  So, if you can disband a lot of HQs, it is worth it as they give 5 pp per pop.  This can be saved for later when you need more counters or spent immediately on R&D.

Note that a basic unit counter costs 1 pp which is the same as 5 rifle.  An HQ cost 5 pp which is the same cost as a lt tank and 5 rifle.  AT is fundamentally about resource optimization.  You do not want a lot of extraneous units, especially HQ.


I know there were probably other factors involved, but is this one of the reasons why in your Barbarossa scenario, you have OKW HQ/Army Group HQ/Corps, leaving out the Army HQ (as in 2nd Army, 1st Pz Army, etc.) in the chain of command?

(in reply to tweber)
Post #: 13
RE: Army Organization and Unit Compliment - 11/14/2007 8:16:51 PM   
tweber

 

Posts: 1411
Joined: 6/27/2007
Status: offline
quote:

I'm still working out how best to organize my units but one thing I've noticed in your initial organization is that you only include scouts in your Mountain unit. I think this is a mistake. I find scouts are essential in just about every unit. Particularly Tank units since these units, without scouts can frequently bump right up against enemy units but have no notion about the composition of those units. Getting good intellegance is half the battle in this game and it's why I try to get at least a few scouts in virtually any unit I create.


I use fighters for recon. Scouts are interesting but 2x as expensive as rifle (and a different upgrade path).

quote:

I know there were probably other factors involved, but is this one of the reasons why in your Barbarossa scenario, you have OKW HQ/Army Group HQ/Corps, leaving out the Army HQ (as in 2nd Army, 1st Pz Army, etc.) in the chain of command?


Yes. But I also think the playability improves with fewer HQ. I often find my forces are hopelessly disorganized after a few turns with a lot of HQ to keep straight.

(in reply to TPM)
Post #: 14
RE: Army Organization and Unit Compliment - 11/15/2007 6:48:58 PM   
Ande

 

Posts: 197
Joined: 7/5/2007
From: Göteborg/Sweden
Status: offline 		I keep my organisation simple: a supreme hq for supply and production and front hq's for that tasty hq bonus. my army is built around two main elemenst: the defencive infantrybased units with inf, bazookas,machineguns, atguns(whatever necessary) and the armoured reserve/spearhead unit for flexibility, these often consist of mediumtankt, infantry with halftracks(especially nice recon cap when your attacking and better mobility)and if necessary tankdestroyers. around that I have supporting artillery units and airforce. I dont have any standard units but tries to keep my units at about 50 infantr (and two halftrak and at least two tanks for the armoured units)

(in reply to tweber)
Post #: 15
RE: Army Organization and Unit Compliment - 11/16/2007 12:50:49 AM   
seille

 

Posts: 2134
Joined: 6/19/2007
From: Germany
Status: offline 		Sounds like a good system Ande.
As Tom said the more HQ´s the harder to keep the overview.
Especially for supply and production routing.
Or for the staff support. You have to check all these little HQ´s for these things.
Why ? Just for having all the HQ´s in the game ?

I saw a 1939 version with so many HQ´s that i already saw me disbanding
most of them with a nice result.
I would still have a army with a lot of punch and staff support + enough extra PP to get the fighter II upgrade.
And a player who want to win will use such a chance



< Message edited by seille -- 11/16/2007 12:55:53 AM >

(in reply to Ande)
Post #: 16
RE: Army Organization and Unit Compliment - 11/16/2007 1:25:43 AM   
TPM

 

Posts: 349
Joined: 2/8/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: seille

Sounds like a good system Ande.
As Tom said the more HQ´s the harder to keep the overview.
Especially for supply and production routing.
Or for the staff support. You have to check all these little HQ´s for these things.
Why ? Just for having all the HQ´s in the game ?

I saw a 1939 version with so many HQ´s that i already saw me disbanding
most of them with a nice result.
I would still have a army with a lot of punch and staff support + enough extra PP to get the fighter II upgrade.
And a player who want to win will use such a chance





As far as practically and gameplay go, yeah, fewer HQ's are definitely better, but the geeky/historical side of me loves them, and this is why I love this game...I love the fact that I can create my own chain of command, etc.

(in reply to seille)
Post #: 17
RE: Army Organization and Unit Compliment - 11/16/2007 2:26:04 AM   
Frido1207

 

Posts: 456
Joined: 11/16/2006
From: Lower Saxony, Germany
Status: offline 		Interessting reading.
Just a noob questions concerning those "slim-line" organisation.
I noticed that the "hqpw" value decreases the greater the distance is between HQ & the SF attached to them. How does it affect the morale, combat value etc. of this SF?

(in reply to TPM)
Post #: 18
RE: Army Organization and Unit Compliment - 11/16/2007 4:44:40 AM   
freeboy

 

Posts: 9088
Joined: 5/16/2004
From: Colorado
Status: offline 		I vote this thread be stickied!

(in reply to Frido1207)
Post #: 19
RE: Army Organization and Unit Compliment - 11/17/2007 7:35:31 PM   
Ande

 

Posts: 197
Joined: 7/5/2007
From: Göteborg/Sweden
Status: offline 		staff increases combatstats, readiness and moral restoration as far as I understood 

(in reply to freeboy)
Post #: 20
RE: Army Organization and Unit Compliment - 11/17/2007 8:03:29 PM   
Westheim

 

Posts: 570
Joined: 7/9/2007
From: Germany
Status: offline 		What's with all these plans anyway. No fixed unit composition survives the first battle anyway. What does Westheim put into a unit?

Infantry Division - 30xInfantry
Tank Division - As much tanks as it needs
Artillery Division - As much artillery as I can collect + 10xInfantry + trucks
PAK Division - 3-5 PAKs + 10xInfantry + trucks (Oh, by the way, PAK is a german abbreviation for anti tank gun )
Engineering Division - Up to 100xEngineers + trucks

There really isn't any system in it. There are also mixed infantry divisions everywhere in my armies.

By the way, so far I only used the Supreme HQ with sub-HQs ("corps") for medium sized front parts. Haven't build an intermediate HQ (army HQ) so far. These sub-HQs all contain up to 20 divisions, which are spread out as far as as many hexes, if it's necessary.

I just don't see the need for fixed settings like f.e. Banquet. What happens, if one of your divisions suffers heavy losses? Won't you create new divisions just because that old division needs to be filled up again?

I'm much more "liberal" there. What's torn most of the time IS torn. Ripped apart divisions with 4 rifles and a truck can always be reserves or guide cities far behind against paratroopers or be the 2nd or 3rd unit in a front hex or something like that.

(in reply to Ande)
Post #: 21
RE: Army Organization and Unit Compliment - 11/18/2007 2:04:42 AM   
Ande

 

Posts: 197
Joined: 7/5/2007
From: Göteborg/Sweden
Status: offline 		yes flexibility is the name of the game, you should always be prepared to counter anything the enemy throws at you, I just have a rule of thump that infantry is keeping the front with some med tanks and tankdestroyers in the back and ofcourse flak and/or fightersupport, the actual size of units is really a matter of frontsize vs production even though I prefer units in the 100-200 power span since most AI units are 50-100. It keeps the juggernaut rolling

(in reply to Westheim)
Post #: 22
RE: Army Organization and Unit Compliment - 11/18/2007 9:35:51 AM   
Westheim

 

Posts: 570
Joined: 7/9/2007
From: Germany
Status: offline 		Tankdestroyers? Never built them so far. The AI doesn't use much tanks. Some AT guns at the front do almost the same job.

(in reply to Ande)
Post #: 23
RE: Army Organization and Unit Compliment - 11/18/2007 10:12:15 AM   
Warspite3

 

Posts: 210
Joined: 3/31/2005
Status: offline 		My forces vary greatly. My last game, I had many simple divisions like this...

30x-40x rifle
3x-6x at
3x-6x horse (depending on how many gun pieces I have)

Basically these were anti tank divisions. I had several of these to help fight back the AIs tanks and armored cars. Later I made similar divisions like this but put in IGs or mortars instead of ATs once I was able to beat back those tanks. Westheim, the AI was rolling in the tanks on me one after another. I never noticed any huge tank divisions but many tanks and enough where I had to completely change my cheap infantry strategies. Oh I build alot of horses, especially in the beginning. Anyone else build many horses? I have not seen too many people mention it. Its a poor man's truck and you can get alot of them really quick.


< Message edited by Warspite3 -- 11/18/2007 10:19:12 AM >

_____________________________

-Warspite3-

(in reply to Westheim)
Post #: 24
RE: Army Organization and Unit Compliment - 11/18/2007 10:39:46 AM   
Westheim

 

Posts: 570
Joined: 7/9/2007
From: Germany
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Warspite3
Anyone else build many horses? I have not seen too many people mention it. Its a poor man's truck and you can get alot of them really quick.


Exactly, they're poor mens' trucks (), so I build them especially in the beginning, when trucks just cost too much to build them en masse, while you still need rifles and engineers and other things. They are better than trucks in mountain terrain, so I always have some of them stored somewhere to quickly deploy a mountain anti tank gun division at a gap or something like that. But later in the game it's mostly trucks.

I have seen the AI build only few tanks, but those are usually quite good. It's around turn 55 in the game I made that small AAR of, and the AI carries a few (really a few) light tanks III, medium tanks III, and I saw one or two heavy tanks (II?), while I'm still stuck with light II, medium I, and no hard ones at all. I never saw a division of more than 4 tanks on the AI side.

(in reply to Warspite3)
Post #: 25
RE: Army Organization and Unit Compliment - 11/18/2007 11:44:31 AM   
seille

 

Posts: 2134
Joined: 6/19/2007
From: Germany
Status: offline 		AI tanks are good until you come with some divebombers and finish them off
That´s my AT weapon.....

(in reply to Westheim)
Post #: 26
RE: Army Organization and Unit Compliment - 1/5/2008 12:31:48 AM   
Grymme

 

Posts: 1821
Joined: 12/16/2007
Status: offline 		Here is what i aim for. Please critizise.

Mechanized Division (for mobility, allround, for attackíng enemy infantry units)
30 Rifle
10 Mortar
10 Bazooka
5 Machinegun
1 light tank
2 armoured cars
2 halftracks

Armoured Division For attack
2-4 Heavy Tanks/Tankdestroyers
3-4 Medium tanks
1-3 Light tanks/armoured cars (for a total of 10 units)
30 Rifle/SMG
10 Mortars
10 Machinegun

Artillery Division
6-8 Artillery
10 Rifle
Enough halftracks

Engineer Divisions
40 or 60 Engineers
2 or 3 Trucks/halftracks

Mountain Divisions I mainly defend in mountains, try never to attack through them
40 Rifle
10 Mortars
10 Machinegun
6 Horses


Please come with suggestions. I am not so happy with performance of mobile divisions for example. Right now i play against 7 AI+ on a 60-60 map with 45 level 3 cities.


(in reply to seille)
Post #: 27
RE: Army Organization and Unit Compliment - 1/5/2008 1:09:34 AM   
miral

 

Posts: 170
Joined: 12/20/2007
Status: offline 		Interesting topic. The argument is basically between the WWII USA and German systems. The Americans tended to use same size, interchangeable units (though the Armored Division Combat Command units were somewhat an exception to this). The Nazis, though they had a supposed set size for infantry or armor divisions ect., used the system of forming units individualy tailored in size and composition to the task at hand. The German system is the more flexible but needs greater skill. The Nazis had a deeper pool of experienced officers than did the Americans so each sides system was probably best for them. Indeed, as many military historians and sociologists have pointed out, a nation's army is a microcosm of that nation.

In AT the organization will probably be based on the players aesthetic preference, I would think. Some people have the type of minds that want standardized units, others like the creativity of specially composed units. You can make a good argument for either type of organization.

Same for HQ's. I think few or many is aesthetic preference rather than provable effectiveness and either can be good or bad; depends on the generalship.

Oh, once when trying to create a HQ I got message that I had too many HQ in chain of command. What did this mean? Has it happened to anyone else?

(in reply to jrm16311)
Post #: 28
RE: Army Organization and Unit Compliment - 1/5/2008 3:37:03 AM   
Twotribes


Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline 		You can only have a chain of 4 headquarters, Meaning a senior headquarters with the next level, then the next, then the next.... each of the 3 lower levels have no limit as far as I know.

So

Supreme Headquarters

Army Headquarters ( any number)

Corps Head Quarters (any Number)

Division Headquarters ( any Number)

you can not then have a new Headquarters assigned to the "division" level Headquarters.

(in reply to miral)
Post #: 29
RE: Army Organization and Unit Compliment - 1/5/2008 1:27:08 PM   
Widell


Posts: 913
Joined: 4/27/2005
From: Trollhättan, Sweden
Status: offline 		It seems this subject depends on if you play random setups compared to historical (or semi-historical as in what-ifs) scenarios. For example, in a Barabarossa scenario, it would not "feel right" to play with a very flat organization, while this make sence on a random map where you control your initial OOB as a player to a much larger extent. Any comments to that bold statement from those that have more experience from the game?

_____________________________


(in reply to Twotribes)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Advanced Tactics Series >> Army Organization and Unit Compliment Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.781