Switch_Back

Your right about the engineers, but I also use them because of their high level of firepower, I like to have the STUGs supported by a high level of infantry firepower, to match that of their destructive capabilities. The way I see it there is little point using wimpy units to protect and support vehicles with high firepower and low defensability because this just does not work, unless things are desperate. Oh and thanks for the welcome, much appreciated!

STUGs are very good defenders, especially when squeezed between two buildings or in a grouping of trees, they are the best in trees because they have such a low sillouette it can be difficult for attackers to spot them, thus making sure that the STUG gets off the first shot, one well placed Veteran STUG can be very menacing to any attacker that you face. :cool:

STUGs are very useful if you can use them skilfully, I swear by STUGs and use them quite often, you are all gonna do some flaming over this, but all I gotta say is they work for me. If they are used in a village assault, the STUG can be advanced down the road whilst being flanked by infantry ( preferrably engineers ) and supported from behind by mortars and basic infantry, they can provide fire support down the road and at buildings where the enemy might be hiding. Usually use two STUGs in tandem rolling down the road in this case. Please dont be nasty im new lol

On the question of AT guns, I have a question for all of you, how often were 88 batteries actually used in WW2??

Definatley, its loads of fun watching the stupid AI throw its HQ units forwards, because they just get mowed down by machine gun fire, or pummeled by tanks, and then the AI is left with low morale troops, making things somewhat easier.... Anyone realise how effective a zook troop, supported by a Comapany HQ is?? hehe used properly, this is a very devestating anti tank team!!

AARROROWWOWOWWWWW??

It does not seem to be a mis-conception of yours I have the very same idea, HQ units do put up a better fight and are more powerful than a regular infantry unit, but this is probably because HQ units would often be made up of more experienced and better troops, and this is balanced out by the fact that HQ units do not carry AT weapons, so they can not be used to, too great a benefit.

I concur, though I have never used them against a human opponent because I dont want my games to be gamey, but when I use it against the AI in a scenario ( out of my control what I have ) it just tears holes in enemy lines with complete ease, even if it gets immobolized if it is rear facing it can shread any advance and still provide DF support.

Jadgtiger, grumble.... grumble..... I am facing one at the moment, it is on a hill with trees to the front and it has plenty of LOS to the flanks which has currently pinned down my flanking manuever, I now have to resort to the undesirable situation which I do not want which is advancing through thick groves of woods and scattered trees, because I simply dont have the firepower to afford a duel with a Jagdtiger. Damn everything with the name Jadg or Jaeger!! lol

STUGs have proved very useful with me, especially when advancing down a hill, first I send out the infantry in an inverse wedge advancing forwards, and set up an artillery barrage to arrive in possible localized enemy positions, whilst keeping the STUGs back, then as soon as the infantry has, made contact with enemy forces and the situation seems acceptable, the STUGs are then rolled over the hill and put in such a position to provide accurate and fairly unrestricted DF support. If I have some PZIV tanks available I will let them drive slightly behind the infantry so that they have plenty of close AT support as well as the DF from the hill. Im a newbie to this forum so dont be too harsh lol