MG and bazookas

[Twotribes]

Are these both front line units and best used on defense?

[ernieschwitz]

I think so...

I know that MGs are. Not sure about Bazookas, but it would make sense if they are.

[Strategiusz]

Bazookas are front units too. But they have more HP than other infantry, so they have better survivability.
Bazookas are better in defense but their favorite targets (tanks etc.) are better and have more HP in attack. In defense however infantry is usually entrenched, and tanks have penalties when they're attacking everything except plains, fields and deserts, so generally for infantry is better to defense.

[Josh]

With MG's you mean heavy Machine Guns? And not the Submachine Guns right? In that case yes, MG's are *perfect* on the defense. 5 of them or even maybe 10 in an Inf unit definitely keeps enemy Inf away, especially in forests and cities.
Bazookas I don't know... not fond of them. First is AT guns for me, they rule. Then later in the game Bazookas get added but they never get much tank kills, even when in cities and forests where armour is vulnerable... oh it works but it just ain't the tank killer I thought it would be. Or maybe I haven't experimented enough with them?

[Jenska]

Bazookas can be more effective than AT in some circumstances, but head-to-head they don't do so in simple situations.

You have to keep in mind the difference in HP's and attack/defense strengths for each unit as well as the cost. At 1000 production units, you get ONE AT or 4 Bazookas. Thats 200 HP's vs 600, 1800 defense vs 1600, but only 600 attack vs 1000. Now armor has different A/D values against infantry vs artillery, but by putting some rifles or militia in the mix the bazookas survive longer than you might expect and you should ALWAYS have some infantry in an AT formation otherwise you lose the REAR area advantage of the AT units.

Some other items to keep in mind:
1. If you want to go on the offense against armor bazookas DO NOT have a terrain penalty, so the 1000 attack is still 1000, but the AT gets reduced to 300 or even 150 if you're not on the plains
2. You can buy 250, 500 or 1500 points worth of bazookas all at once, but not AT's, they're 1000 each.
3. Horses may not be expensive, but one horse carries 2500 bazooka attack and 4000 defense and 1500 hit points (cost 2700 prod, 10 raw), roughly the same cost (2400/10) gets you 2 horses and 2 AT's for 600 attack, 3600 defense and 400 hit points.
4. Bazookas entrench twice as fast as AT's
5. AT's have a higher defense initiative, but they have the same offensive intitiative.
6. Bazookas are FRONT line units, ATs are REAR

IMO - AT's are best in a static or slow moving situation, either to slow an advance or consolidate gains. Bazookas are better suited to a faster advance or to cover a rapid retreat.

I'm going to be experimenting with several interesting unit mixes soon, so I may start some new threads focusing on them.

[jday305]

1+ for Jenska's explaination of the difference between bazookas and ATs.

[Hollywood7]

+1

ORIGINAL: Jenska

Bazookas can be more effective than AT in some circumstances, but head-to-head they don't do so in simple situations.

You have to keep in mind the difference in HP's and attack/defense strengths for each unit as well as the cost. At 1000 production units, you get ONE AT or 4 Bazookas. Thats 200 HP's vs 600, 1800 defense vs 1600, but only 600 attack vs 1000. Now armor has different A/D values against infantry vs artillery, but by putting some rifles or militia in the mix the bazookas survive longer than you might expect and you should ALWAYS have some infantry in an AT formation otherwise you lose the REAR area advantage of the AT units.

Some other items to keep in mind:
1. If you want to go on the offense against armor bazookas DO NOT have a terrain penalty, so the 1000 attack is still 1000, but the AT gets reduced to 300 or even 150 if you're not on the plains
2. You can buy 250, 500 or 1500 points worth of bazookas all at once, but not AT's, they're 1000 each.
3. Horses may not be expensive, but one horse carries 2500 bazooka attack and 4000 defense and 1500 hit points (cost 2700 prod, 10 raw), roughly the same cost (2400/10) gets you 2 horses and 2 AT's for 600 attack, 3600 defense and 400 hit points.
4. Bazookas entrench twice as fast as AT's
5. AT's have a higher defense initiative, but they have the same offensive intitiative.
6. Bazookas are FRONT line units, ATs are REAR

IMO - AT's are best in a static or slow moving situation, either to slow an advance or consolidate gains. Bazookas are better suited to a faster advance or to cover a rapid retreat.

I'm going to be experimenting with several interesting unit mixes soon, so I may start some new threads focusing on them.

[all5n]

I use bazookas in Anti-Tank armored units. Because they can "ride" on the tanks, they don't slow it down.

It adds an additional AT punch for extra hits on the armored units that i am trying to take out.

[Jenska]

@all5n: I often spring for Light Tank II early for extra punch against other LT's and AC's. Not as powerful as Medium Tank (same PP cost) but less expensive to build and provides more individual units for better coverage. IN some games we don't get past 1 or 2 level II researches so the first choice is often key.