Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't these two units have extremely different uses?
I agree that it might not be common to see these two units solely combined together for use in a combat situation. Overall it's probably better to split them between the three regiments of the division. But when I looked into the Fusilier units, these were made up of heavy weapons and recon elements of the division. They were separate from the other regiments. In the Bulge the infantry divisions formed 'mobile' detachments from whatever they had that could move faster than the horse and foot elements. So it seems reasonable to combine these two units. You say they have extremely different uses, but you don't explain these uses. This would help in making a decision.
... 'anty' units. It would seem to me it's not the units that are the problem but the people who use them in a manner that would not be seen in the real world.
Agreed for sure, and I was recently involved in a lengthy e-mail discussion about it. In putting together units for a scenario, all I feel I can do is to limit the number of ant units. I can't dictate what tactics some feel are unreasonable, while others feel they are acceptable. All I can suggest is that players compete against other players that are in agreement with tactics. That said, the reason I call these two units 'anty' isn't because of tactics, it's because of their size on a battlefield dominated by Allied regiments that are 5x their strength. During play you end up taking pains to stack them with other units to avoid the rbc's that will drive them all over the map. It's stupid and a waste of time. Combining these units seems an obvious solution, but that is why I brought it up here, to get your opinions.
... throwing reality and history out the window ...
That's the last thing I want to do. Of course, it is an unreal and unhistorical scenario [;)].
As for the AAA units, we'll get to them next. [:D]
Thanks!
