Quality vs. Quantity

[pktaske]

I'm sure the forum has broached this subject before, but aside from (maybe) high-quality tank hunting AFV's, is it really worth forkin' over the xtra points for vet inf squads vs regs? At the end of most games, I find its the guy with the freshest troops in reserve that have the edge...and what better way than to achieve this than to have larger numbers of troops...don't have time to go into too much detail and would like to hear from people a lot smarter than me about this...but as an FYI, in between typing this, I just finished another quick battle vs vets where 1 extra squad ended up taking the objective.

[Guest *Captain Foobar*]

This is always going to be a subjective decision you make while playing CM. Obviously, the AFV that fires first will often be the one to survive. But you are asking more about infantry, etc.

I will rarely spend all my infantry points on veteran squads. Now veteran squads, if not exposed to too much grazing fire, HE, etc. can stay pretty fierce for a long time, when compared with regulars, but the biggest drawback is simply ammo. It is common for a skirmishing squad to expend its entire ammo load in 15 turns of fire, from my experiences. If they are regulars, and you have plenty more in reserve, you just cycle them back to your MLR, or whatever, use them to guard pow's, or even walk them off the map. But if your already outmanned 'vets' run out of ammo, you will often have nothing left to dobut throw medium sized rocks at your enemies.

On the other hand, Vet squads seem to do everything better. If you have a small town on the map you want to defend, you will often get a very high yief out of vet squads. I once had a german vet squad in CE get 33 kills before being destroyed. He was out of C&C, and defending the church from the oncoming hordes. Veterans also spot better. If you follow Pillar & Fionn's tactics and AAR's, they seem to advocate using as high quality screening forces (on defense) and recon (on attack) as possible. They spot better, they are less likely to rout when suprised by an ambush.

It comes down to finding the balance between running off the map because your vet squads are out of ammo, and running off the map, because your regular squads are broken and routed girly-men.

------------------

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Elijah Meeks: SturmTiger!

Blah blah blah rarity, blah blah blah.

SturmTiger SturmTiger SturmTiger!!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[M. Bates]

I am tending to go towards regular.

Use Veteran Platoons as your battering ram and Regular Platoons to consolidate.

[Dirtweasle]

About the ammo... is it all that realistc for troops geared up for a battle to only have 15 minutes worth of small arms ammo on hand?

[karch]

Originally posted by Dirtweasle:

About the ammo... is it all that realistc for troops geared up for a battle to only have 15 minutes worth of small arms ammo on hand?

I'd have to venture yes. Think about how fast a Garand can run through bullets and how many clips you would need if you were in a heavy firefight or laying down heavy covering fire for the troops ahead of you. Not to mention MGs. I think if you really tried, you could fire off all the ammo you could possibly carry within 5-7 minutes.

The only thing that is difficult is finding ways to not fire on every unit in LOS at 200M and waste ammo. Hiding is the only real option, but I'm always afraid someone will rush them while they are hiding.

Karch

[Guest Martin Cracauer]

Originally posted by Dirtweasle:

About the ammo... is it all that realistc for troops geared up for a battle to only have 15 minutes worth of small arms ammo on hand?

Radio eriwan: Yes. In principle.

In practice you have resupply even within such battles (we are talking up to 2 hours here), especially for MG and AT units, especially when defending from their original position. Also, CMBO does not model getting the ammo from knocked out nearby friendly units.

A possible quick fix would be to have a certain chance of resupply for a certain percentage of the original ammo per turn, a low one, so that in most cases you go 15 (or so) minutes without resupply. Can be modulated by a global variable for force quality, distance to the own map side or a HQ or maybe even a tuning interface for the player who can trade resupply probability of one unit for another one's.

Martin

[Guest Martin Cracauer]

Originally posted by pktaske:

I'm sure the forum has broached this subject before, but aside from (maybe) high-quality tank hunting AFV's, is it really worth forkin' over the xtra points for vet inf squads vs regs?

I agree on this point, including the ammo remark.

And there's another issue: The higher quality units is not always clearly better.

Often they get killed where you would have preffered them to run away.

Also, high-quality tank crews fire later(!) than low-quality tank crews. CMBO models that the first shot is not done from a hectic reflex, but really aimed. That can backfire since getting the first shot is often important. If the distance is short and your unit is predominant, but thin-skinned (think of your Nashorn against a Stuart) I'd prefer to take the quick shot.

For what it's worth, everytime I see a discussion like this, many people speak up stating they indeed prefer low quality units.

High-quality off-map arty is plain nice, however.

Martin

[aka_tom_w]

Maybe I have not looked at this situation closely enough but I usually prefer to take the more experienced units. My experience with sharp shooters is that they are worth the extra points.

I find that tank crews are usually worth the extra cost. I rarely "buy" units but in scenario set ups if the comptuer is to buy I like to set the experience level to high.

In scenario's I design I like to provide a wide range of experiences for both players.

When "buying" units I have been of the opinion in the past that the extra experience level(s) "should" be worth more than the extra cost in points spent, but I am open minded and perhaps I am mistaken, and that if reg tank crews do indeed get the first shot off faster I should think that factor should be seriously considered.

interesting question?

Any other comments?

-tom w

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 02-24-2001).]

[Guest Martin Cracauer]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

... and that if reg tank crews do indeed get the first shot off faster I should think that factor should be seriously considered.

Did some testing: 5x M4A3(76)W+ (the 5 experience grades), all buttoned and open against 10 Lynx at 200 meters. Isolated test, each Sherman can only see its own Lynx.

If there is a difference, it is about the amount of time that the shell travel is.

I suspected it may be different when the target is a danger to the shooter and re-run the test with Tigers instead of Lynx. No difference.

I apologize if I posted heresay, but it seemed to be consistent with what my impression was. It can't hold this direct comparision test, though. Maybe things are different when the target is spotted later in the turn so that the effect is a cumulation of spotting and aiming, but aiming time alone seems to be equal.

The rate of misses on the first shot is quite equal, BTW, both for different experience and for bottoned vs. open.

Martin

[Mlapanzer]

One place I've noticed where being a veteran makes a big difference is in infantry AT weapons (Zooks, shrieks,piats) They are less likely to be seen earlier and much more acurate.

-----

"Who put Orange juice in my orange juice" W.C. Fields

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

Some roles high quality units are worth it, most I find they are not. And a mix with only some higher quality can get the benefits without all of the costs.

I find QL levels above regular pointless for artillery FOs, on-map mortars, soft-skinned vehicles, and most MG-armed light armor, halftracks, etc. I find the highest available quality useful for snipers - there is no point trying to substitute numbers there and the cost difference is tiny. I don't consider higher QLs worth it for towed guns, as they are too vunerable once revealed - pillboxes and such likewise.

For gun-armed light armor, I consider veteran quality only useful for 1-2 "point" vehicles. The life expectancy of light armor is generally not long enough to justify the cost of vet QL for every vehicle, but faster reactions can help with vehicle "scouts". Only if the vehicle has a gun, though - there is no point in having a "quicker" M-20 because it just doesn't matter that much whether it is knocked out. With M-8s or PSWs 1-2 vets makes sense.

With heavier armor, first I don't consider higher QL worth it for the support type vehicles, the ones not really engaged in tank-dueling, and those with low survivability in stand-up fights. Sherman 105s, Priests, Marders, etc - there is little point.

With the main tank and TD types, higher quality is definitely valuable, but also costs a fair amount. Usually it makes more sense to buy a better vehicle rather than a worse one with a better crew. A regular Tiger I is much more capable than a well-crewed Pz IV.

I prefer to use 1-2 higher quality vehicles as anti-tank "shooters", not leading with them but reacting to identified threats. These need good AT guns - short-barrelled Shermans, I wouldn't pay the added costs, but a few Sherman 76s or TDs or the better German tank types, sure. 1 Vet in a platoon of "vanilla" German tanks is fine too, since I don't like to mix types and often one can't afford e.g. to upgrade the whole force to Panthers.

With infantry, my attitude is that some veterans are useful as a reserve, for "shock" counterattack roles (one added platoon in a force, typically), in especially demanding jobs like combat engineers (though those are pricey to begin with), and with key teams - German HMGs especially. With them, high QL improves their shooting and especially helps them shrug off enemy return fire and remain unsuppressed. And they have tons of ammo, and large enough crews to stay in action long. Not worth it for LMGs though.

.50 cals have limited ammo and are slow, so the MMGs benefit more on the U.S side. I rarely have occasion to take improved U.S. MMGs, though, because I usually get them from a company "buy", which is usually regular. With German VG infantry you buy the HMGs seperate so it is easier to mix the qualities.

AT teams benefit too and the added cost is not high, but with the Americans more bazookas is a reasonable option instead of better ones. There are a couple reasons for this. AT teams have low life expectancy but do important work. In the case of the German Screcks, they also kill what they hit, from any angle. But this is less true with zook teams, which need flank shots. All AT teams depend on being close, and either numbers or bravery are ways to try to get that.

I don't use higher QL infantry for scouting. Others recommend that because it helps keep them alive and they rely heavily on maneuver and on the scouts to pull their other elements forward. I don't. I find my "point" generally gets shot up a lot, and thus I prefer to have my best men in a reserve formation where they live longer and have more freedom of action, free of enemy fire. Greens don't work on "point", though - they just aren't up to the job and pin too easily.

To recap, I like high quality in snipers, gun-armed light armor "point" vehicles, in a few selected AT-capable heavy armored vehicles, in a reserve infantry platoon, and in key infantry teams, HMG and AT. Everybody else is fine as regulars. I'd much rather have the extra tank, infantry platoon, extra teams, or artillery support that I can buy with this approach, than have veterans everywhere.

What works for me...