Page 2 of 2
RE: Armoured Division composition
Posted: Mon Jun 24, 2013 1:46 pm
by JagdFlanker
no specific advantage - any unit under any HQ will benefit the exact same from the bombardment results
RE: Armoured Division composition
Posted: Mon Jun 24, 2013 11:27 pm
by Jenska
I was going to start a new thread for this, but it looks like all the right people and viewpoints are here. SO, does anyone else think that half tracks provide way too much defensive capacity for the infantry without reducing the INF combat effectiveness. It seems that the HT's are far too had to kill, they weren't full blown APC's after all, and should be more succeptable to tank fire. And "mounted" INF usually can't fight at full capability either. Most other games make some adjustment for that. ATG seems to give the soft-mobile category no natural enemies, but the HT's have as many amor hitpoints as an armored car and even more infantry hitpoints than the AC. I thought HT's were protection from small arms and shell fragments, not from direct hits from (anti)(tank) artillery. IT seems that the HT is unbalanced due to being in a light weight mobile category that should have been hard to hit (jeeps & trucks) but given armor class defense against all comers while allowing the infantry to fight even when "buttoned up". Does anyone else feel this way, or am I being a sore loser, having been unable to stop an onslaught of HT carried rifle & smg troops ??
RE: Armoured Division composition
Posted: Tue Jun 25, 2013 12:13 am
by Twotribes
ORIGINAL: Jenska
I was going to start a new thread for this, but it looks like all the right people and viewpoints are here. SO, does anyone else think that half tracks provide way too much defensive capacity for the infantry without reducing the INF combat effectiveness. It seems that the HT's are far too had to kill, they weren't full blown APC's after all, and should be more succeptable to tank fire. And "mounted" INF usually can't fight at full capability either. Most other games make some adjustment for that. ATG seems to give the soft-mobile category no natural enemies, but the HT's have as many amor hitpoints as an armored car and even more infantry hitpoints than the AC. I thought HT's were protection from small arms and shell fragments, not from direct hits from (anti)(tank) artillery. IT seems that the HT is unbalanced due to being in a light weight mobile category that should have been hard to hit (jeeps & trucks) but given armor class defense against all comers while allowing the infantry to fight even when "buttoned up". Does anyone else feel this way, or am I being a sore loser, having been unable to stop an onslaught of HT carried rifle & smg troops ??
I lose halftracks and Infantry all the time.
RE: Armoured Division composition
Posted: Tue Jun 25, 2013 4:29 am
by srndac
@ cbardswell
What he (Flanker Leader) said.
@ Jenska
No offense, but, IMHO (and from personal experience) - you're just being a sore loser.
I don't blame you, though - I'm finding that ATG's AI is a whole lot harder than the AT's AI. Especially with no restrictions on Raw and Oil materials. It can (the AI, I mean) literally build 100's of Heavy Tanks and then drive them to the other side of the map without breaking a sweat. Very (VERY) annoying.
But makes victory (when you finally manage to achieve it) all the sweeter.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I get the impression that the enemy (in your game) is using only Half-Tracks and Rifles/SMG's - no supports?
cheers!
RE: Armoured Division composition
Posted: Tue Jun 25, 2013 8:00 am
by cbardswell
@srndac @flanker leader - cheers guys!
@jenska - hmmm, I know what you mean but I don't think it's that unbalanced. Generally tanks go through half tracks pretty quick (even given HTs are rear area) and on the defence a stiffening of bazookas in the infantry works well for me. Overall it "feels" about right. I've lost enough half tracks on the offensive to wish they were a bit tougher sometimes! [8|]
RE: Armoured Division composition
Posted: Tue Jun 25, 2013 4:51 pm
by Jenska
Okay, I stand corrected, thanks for straightening me out. I guess I just need to get enough armor in one place to hammer them properly. Three tanks vs two HT's doesn't seem to do it yet, which is what I would have expected; especially since the ht's are cheaper than light tanks. In my case the opposition is mostly rifle/smg in HT's , with a few bazookas against my armor. In the woods I expect to lose, but in the open I don't seem to do much better. BY the time I get to Heavy Tanks, it'll be over.
RE: Armoured Division composition
Posted: Wed Jun 26, 2013 11:00 am
by Josh
ORIGINAL: Jenska
Okay, I stand corrected, thanks for straightening me out. I guess I just need to get enough armor in one place to hammer them properly. Three tanks vs two HT's doesn't seem to do it yet, which is what I would have expected; especially since the ht's are cheaper than light tanks. In my case the opposition is mostly rifle/smg in HT's , with a few bazookas against my armor. In the woods I expect to lose, but in the open I don't seem to do much better. BY the time I get to Heavy Tanks, it'll be over.
Not exactly sure how the calculating is done, but each unit has a number of attacks per turn, that turn is divided into 10 rounds. Heavy equipment like tanks get less shots out than lighter stuff like Infantry or HT's. So while that lighter stuff won't hurt your Light Tanks probably, it's quite possible that your tank unit won't kill or destroy that enemy unit either.
What I almost always do is bombard with Artillery (especially Heavy Artillery... [&o] ) then send in the Bombers (if possible that is, always avoid Flak or enemy Fighters) to lower the readiness of the opposing unit (that's the green bar). The lower that green bar the better. Then follows the final attack. Maybe this will change your results?