Quality vs Quantity vs Expiriance

[Shadow 1st Hussars]

The three important things when choosing troops, how do you choose between the three. Do you buy 10 veteran PzIV's or 3 Regular King Tigers? Does anyone go for the green stratagy, sending as many troops at the enemy in a massive rush attempting to overrun enemy positions ie: Viet Cong style, or do you let you elite vickers machine guns sit back and kill anything they see? Anyways, enough rambling, and onto the main question. What do you people think is the most important thing when choosing troops, Quality (thick armour, big guns), Quantity (lots of useless whimpy stuff), or quality (elite british airborne)?

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

Charlie don't Surf

shadow@jagdtiger.de

http://www.orbitonline.ca/~Shadow/index.html

[John Hough]

Balance.

I want to have enough quality to be able to touch my opponent's troops, but enough quantity that I don't have to rely overly much on luck or get swamped by my opponent's forces.

I always get enough armor so that each intended tank element has at least 2 tanks. If that leaves me in a position to get better tanks, then I consider it. I'll sometimes, if I can spare the points, get about a third of my infantry veteran.

-John

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

so you can stay cool behind your window

and choose the view you want to see

but as long as there's others held captive

do not consider yourself free

-EMBRACE, "DO NOT CONSIDER YOURSELF FREE"

[sturmtiger101]

I would tend to agree with Mr Hough, that finding the right force balance is the key ingredient to selection. Myself, I lean towards quality over quantity in most situations. I usually buy veteran troops more than any other group and if its a mix of different skill levels then the veterans are the highest ratio represented. I also decide what quality to buy based on the type of scenario ( attacking vs defending ) being played as well as the terrain features likely to be encountered. Its' my impression that a few good troops are much more effective, incur fewer casualties and inflict more damage upon an opponent than a larger group of lower quality troops. Thus it is possible that in the scheme of things, a more expensive experience ed unit is much more cost effective overall. Just my humble opinion.

Cheers,

E Tuggle

[Warmaker]

I tend towards quality over quantity. After all, all those weapons mean jack sh!# if the men using them are ill-trained. For my infantry I never go below regular status. When I play with Volksgrenadiers and the like I put green or conscripts as their experience. With elite troops like US/UK Airborne, FJ and the like as veterans. For my Panzers I usually try to get as Veterans at the very least. Panzers cost alot as it is so I just say, "what the hell" and get great crews to make sure every shot counts to get the Tiger tank overseeing a plain full of burning tin-can shermans.

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

"Uncommon valor was a common virtue"-Adm.Chester Nimitz of the Marines on Iwo Jima

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

I buy cheap things but look for bargains. I generally use regulars, but if I can one vet platoon, sometimes for tank-killer vehicles, and snipers are vets if I take them. If QBs let you mix green and regulars I'd probably use more greens too, but it doesn't, and all green is just too brittle morale wise, in my experience.

It is, incidentally, silly that forces can be mix vet and regular but not mixed regular and green. Arguably the latter mix was more common in the real war. This is only so in quick battles, but I play those a lot.

The reason lower qualities work fine for infantry is that suppression is the dominant question in infantry fighting. A regular squad that no one is shooting at performs very well, better than a vet being shot at, in my experience. For the same cost, he can't shoot them all.

Command delays I find entirely liveable with regulars. With greens they get noticeable "sticky" once shot at, with long delay times if you try to tell them to do anything useful once they are "cautious" or worse, in particular. A mixed green and regular force can still work, but all greens can't perform jobs like "point" well enough for me.

For guns on defense, the cheap ones are a bargain in my opinion, as regulars. You can buy a battery of the things for the price of a single veteran tank. The TDs are more reasonably priced armor in both armies.

If I am going to spend more on armor, a gun that kills anything or armor that defeats most enemy weapons are the only things worth more than extra tanks, including experience. A regular Tiger I is much more capable than a veteran Pz IV, but the costs are not far apart. A vet Sherman 76(+) is not appreciably better in tank duels than a regular Jackson TD, but it costs nearly twice as much.

In the last case, the good Sherman handles infantry, and suppressing arty fire, better, sure. But that is probably not why you'd consider paying for the 76 gun, the + armor, and the vet crew. And if springing for them does not get you armor that will stop Tiger and Panther rounds, nor a gun that can reliably kill them at range, then the points are just not worth it.

I also like anything fast with an MG and light armor, and many of these are very cheap (as regulars). U.S. M-20s don't cost much more than Jeeps, and Brit MMG Carriers are at least as good. The Germans have to pay more to get such an item, but they have many gun-armed halftracks for reasonable prices.

Anything above "regular" in artillery I consider a waste. It is only a crutch against poor planning, because the time saved is very small. It doesn't matter at all if you planned your artillery use reasonable well.

I hope this is useful.