are sturmmgruppes(sp?) gamey?

[Leeo]

Damnit Croda! Don't make me like you.

{edited because I'm beer-stupid}

[ January 31, 2002, 09:54 PM: Message edited by: Leeo ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Panzerman:

Who always dismounted to fight, anyway.

[Enoch]

Weren't just about all Allied infantry troops motorized? Should players have to buy trucks for them?

[Leeo]

I seriously doubt that allied troops often rode trucks into battle. My guess (feeling, thoughts, impression) is that they used transport strategically much more than they ever used it tactically.

[Croda]

Leeo check your mail

[Charlie Rock]

If you're playing with German infantry I think you're gamey to be mixing and matching infantry types. SS/FJ/Gerbig/Heer should not be mixing.

If you want to buy an armored infantry force without halftracks, cool. There's nothing wrong with that--they often were left behind, esp. if the defender or opponent has AT capability. Or tanks.

Sturmgruppe IMHO aren't gamey at all. In fact, they're not particularly useful. The only advantage I see is they have survivability in that you can shoot them up some and they have spare guys to go around.

If you're really interested, do the math. Pick the different types of German platoons, add up the total firepower numbers, and divide by the cost.

At close ranges sturmgruppe are too expensive for the cost. At 577 points for a company, if you leave out heavy weapons (perhaps not a fair comparison) you're talking over 60 points per squad. At close ranges you get the same firepower from SMG squads (think VG SMG platoons) for 1/2 the price. Fallschirmjager squads have similar firepower with three fewer troops, due to increased auto weapons. FJ companies are cheaper.

At long ranges, oddly enough, (250m-87pts to 500m-43 points) a sturmgruppe squad is the most powerful rifle squad in the game, but still overpriced. If you want long range skirmishing, any of the two-lmg German squads are cheaper.

(For example, try a panzergrenadier squad)

There are some interesting points which provide food for thought. Since they're supposed to be shock troops, larger squads should be able to keep the fight longer. I think this makes sense (the USMC in the pacific had large, 13 man squads, they withstood the attrition better) in the realworld, but in short term CMBO games if sturmgruppe squads lose half their guys, they're probably shaken or broken or something, so better to have smaller sqauds. I'd rather have a fresh squad and a broken squad of two survivors than the supposed advantage of 8 vs.4 broken guys.

I think a real sturmgruppe would have fewer rifles, and more auto weapons. Panzer grendiers get 3 rifles per 8 or 5/10 (motorized), 7/13 seems high for shock troops.

One of the gamiest units in my mind is the heavy SMG squad. It has six SMGs and 2 LMGs. To fire an LMG the assistant gunner is helping to load the belts and feed ammo into the breach, in the math rollup the squads firepower assumes the assistant gunners are somehow feeding the MG42s and firing their MP40s. Don't see how. If you fire an LMG one of the riflemen should not count in the mix.

I think sturmgruppes are good for scenario designers where cost doesen't matter, but they're not really that gamey to me.

[WWB]

1) Motorized Panzergrenadiers (10 man squads) were theoretically mounted in trucks, for strategic & operational transport. In reality, most units were at least significantly short, if not entirely lacking, motorized transport. And even if they did have motorized transport, you had better believe that the Grenadiers walked, rather than rode, into battle. Risking assets as precious as trucks was cause for being shot in some armies. They might well be a waste in CM, but when one have to move hundreds of tons of supplies every just to keep your men fed, one understand just how valuable they are.

2) Armored Pz Grenadiers (8 man squads, come with 250/1 HTs in CM) did ride their transport much closer to battle. But the doctorine still prescribed that the HTs were there to allow semi-protected infantry to move with the tanks operationally, and it still was expected for them to fight mainly on foot, while the transport hid or at best provided long-range fire support. Losing the halftracks meant losing operational mobility. And the loss of that ability made Panzergrenadiers little more than regular infantry with a higher proportion of automatic weapons.

WWB

[Enoch]

Originally posted by Leeo:

I seriously doubt that allied troops often rode trucks into battle. My guess (feeling, thoughts, impression) is that they used transport strategically much more than they ever used it tactically.

Exactly.

[WWB]

Originally posted by Charlie Rock:

One of the gamiest units in my mind is the heavy SMG squad. It has six SMGs and 2 LMGs. To fire an LMG the assistant gunner is helping to load the belts and feed ammo into the breach, in the math rollup the squads firepower assumes the assistant gunners are somehow feeding the MG42s and firing their MP40s. Don't see how. If you fire an LMG one of the riflemen should not count in the mix.

Charlie:

This is taken into account. The SMG squads take a firepower hit at close range, when it is assumed that the MG's assistants, with the SMGs, are shooting rather than feeding.

WWB

[Chad Harrison]

i love it when the enemy buys sturms. nothing beats ambushing a veteran sturms platoon and whipping them all out;akjf;lasasasasasty h'IAHOKHgo;awlj6tyh

[The Commissar]

To the original question:

No, Sturmers aren't gamey. IMO, they are rather overrated and overpriced. Worse then SS Hampsters, actually.

I made the mistake of buying the poor dumb bastards in my early days during a night battle. Gee-frekin'-whiz what a massacre. My opponent (Hi redwolf) outnumbered and routed them while they were busy pissing their pants at the sight of a shadow.

SMG troops on the other hand ARE gamey.

I just think all of you people who say they "...are just as bad as all the other troops if you use tactics, blah blah blah" have never really played a good SMG player.

A good SMG gamey bastard sumbitch player won't let you maintain your steenkin' range. He'll use his own assets to close in, outnumber you with cheap troops, and massacre them with amazing close range firepower.

Oh, and did I mention that because the SMG squad only costs 93 points, your enemy has a lot more points left over to buy other stuff with?

As long as the map isn't very open, a SMG player who is half competent will almost always destroy a player of equal or slightly superior skill in CM. Part of the reason is because MG's aren't effective. Those SMG charges (if you haven't seen one, e-mail me and Ill show you) are absolutely unstopable when done right because the rifle squads don't pack enough firepower and the MG's can't sweed down multiple targets.

Im happy at least this won't be the case in CM2! Buy buy SMG's, hellow sweeping MG fire!

[Goanna]

Anybody who says that its gamey to buy any unit type that can be selected is just a simpering wuss. I have never (I repeat never) lost a battle to some mongrel who claims "If I take SMG squads (or AA trailers or 14" arty or whatever) I can always beat you." Total unadulterated crap. You want to know why you get the **** kicked out of you by the AI using SMGs or FJ or Pollacks or whatever? Look no further than the cro-mag running the show.

It's crap to mix armour with airborne troops or FJ with GJ or Poles with French (if you're into kinky) but that is only if your opponent and you have agreed not to go there. Otherwise, the rest of it is all just sour grapes by some wuss who couldnt figure out how to make the best out of what he got or bought.

Quit your crying and buck up.

[ January 31, 2002, 11:17 PM: Message edited by: Goanna ]

[Silvio Manuel]

Originally posted by wwb_99:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Charlie Rock:

One of the gamiest units in my mind is the heavy SMG squad. It has six SMGs and 2 LMGs. To fire an LMG the assistant gunner is helping to load the belts and feed ammo into the breach, in the math rollup the squads firepower assumes the assistant gunners are somehow feeding the MG42s and firing their MP40s. Don't see how. If you fire an LMG one of the riflemen should not count in the mix.

Charlie:

This is taken into account. The SMG squads take a firepower hit at close range, when it is assumed that the MG's assistants, with the SMGs, are shooting rather than feeding.

WWB</font>

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Enoch:

Weren't just about all Allied infantry troops motorized?

No. British and Canadian infantrymen had no organic transport of their own. A platoon had one 15cwt truck - which was used for platoon gear, not transporting troops. They walked everywhere in action. For long moves, TCVs, pooled at divisional level, were parcelled out for road moves. These were large 60cwt trucks, generally speaking, and did not get anywhere near the FEBA.

[Charlie Rock]

'Kay.

I stand corrected.

[Iron Chef Sakai]

Originally posted by Tiger:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />...MOTORIZED INFANTRY SQUADS MISSING THEIR TRANSPORTS...

So you're saying that it's "gamey" if I buy a motorized panzergrenadier platoon but then don't go to the vehicles selection and buy them a halftrack as well? I assumed they were dismounted infantry.

-john</font>

[Iron Chef Sakai]

Originally posted by Croda:

If it is gamey to use VG, GJ, Fallschim, SG, dismounted mounted PzrGr, Tigers, KTs, Panthers, anything with Jagd in front of it, Hetzers, Jumbos, M7s for Direct Fire, too much arty, not enough arty, lead spoons, and Crocodiles, then why the hell play the game?

You just limited the game to 2 rifle squads firing from max range supported by vanilla Shermans and Mark IVs. Oh, and smoke. Lots of smoke.

Occasionaly people like to try the other units. That's why they're there.

And if (god forbid) someone on a whim backs American Glider Troops with Armor: SUCK IT UP!

Your absolutly wrong about other players wanting to try other units. Most of them anyway that i have played, consistantly use panzer grenediers, smg squads, paratroops, strumkompanie...ect...,my point being is that they NEVER use anything but these units....i like variety in units myself though i mainly stick with vanilla Wermacht and Waffen SS. It's just that 9 out of 10 game si play, i can count on seeing all of the above...so it's obvious that these players do not try anything different, they take their up gunned or upmanned squads to every battle. Now if i did not see this in almost every game i played, i would not even be posting here,.....but like i mentioned earlier the worst is consistantly seeing Pioneer troops mixed in with paratroops and panzer grendiers.......it's just plain cheezy in my opinion, if you guys are into that, hey to each there own, just let me know before hand so i dont have to bother playing you.

[Iron Chef Sakai]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Panzerman:

Who always dismounted to fight, anyway.</font>

Interesting.....so the Panzer Grenediers were always aware of when exactly they were going to be attacked, they were never ambushed in their transports, and i assume when moving toward an objective, they dismounted from their transports a few miles away and walked the rest of the way? The trucks whether you decide to use them or not, should be on the map somewhere. Did Panzer Grenediers ever have to hop back onto their transports and retreat at any point in the war?

[Charlie Rock]

Commissar,

How are MGs going to modeled differently?

[Silvio Manuel]

Originally posted by Iron Chef Sakai:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Panzerman:

Who always dismounted to fight, anyway.</font>

Interesting.....so the Panzer Grenediers were always aware of when exactly they were going to be attacked, they were never ambushed in their transports, and i assume when moving toward an objective, they dismounted from their transports a few miles away and walked the rest of the way? The trucks whether you decide to use them or not, should be on the map somewhere.</font>

[Enoch]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

]No. British and Canadian infantrymen had no organic transport of their own. A platoon had one 15cwt truck - which was used for platoon gear, not transporting troops. They walked everywhere in action. For long moves, TCVs, pooled at divisional level, were parcelled out for road moves. These were large 60cwt trucks, generally speaking, and did not get anywhere near the FEBA.

I was originally just going to say American infantry were motorized, but I figured some commonwealth-grog-wannabe would bite my head off it I was wrong. So, I decided to be generous and assume that the brits and canadaians weren't still fighting the First World War and had motorized all their infantry. That's the last time I try and give the CW more credit than they are do!!!

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Enoch:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

]No. British and Canadian infantrymen had no organic transport of their own. A platoon had one 15cwt truck - which was used for platoon gear, not transporting troops. They walked everywhere in action. For long moves, TCVs, pooled at divisional level, were parcelled out for road moves. These were large 60cwt trucks, generally speaking, and did not get anywhere near the FEBA.

I was originally just going to say American infantry were motorized, but I figured some commonwealth-grog-wannabe would bite my head off it I was wrong. So, I decided to be generous and assume that the brits and canadaians weren't still fighting the First World War and had motorized all their infantry. That's the last time I try and give the CW more credit than they are do!!!</font>

[Slapdragon]

A US infantry division was capable of putting wheels underneath every soldier it had and dragging a couple of days of supplies along also, but this involved turning every vehicle it possessed into a transport. CW divisions where not this lavishly equipped, but CW armies held corps and army level assets that could be used to motorize several infantry divisions. Also, transport battalions existed which did nothing but provide battle transports to the troops.

The most interesting picture I have in my collection is a US division with a bunch of German 251 HTs being used to augment their motor pool. In 1945, when US forces where forced to rationalize for the tgransfer to the pacific, the 2nd AD was found to contain twice as many transports as it was authorized, while several infantry divisions had formed impromptu motor pools.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by Iron Chef Sakai:

Interesting.....so the Panzer Grenediers were always aware of when exactly they were going to be attacked, they were never ambushed in their transports, and i assume when moving toward an objective, they dismounted from their transports a few miles away and walked the rest of the way? The trucks whether you decide to use them or not, should be on the map somewhere. Did Panzer Grenediers ever have to hop back onto their transports and retreat at any point in the war?

Oh get real

In any QB it is always assumed both sides know they are about to go into battle. There is no "ambush" QB setting. Your troops know they are going into battle because you know they are going into battle and you are playing the roll of their commander(s). Some form of recce is assumed to have taken place by the time your first turn starts.

When you are playing, have you ever moved your men as if they were not aware the enemy was near? I didn't think so. So please give up this silly line of reasoning.

[Stoffel]

Question for the commissar:

you say the smg squads are gamey,right?

in cmbb we probably get the russian shock/assault troops..................and if I am right they were armed almost completely with PPSH's with these nice big drum magazines.

and I am sure these units were pretty common too

But since you think such units are gamey,you for sure aint gonna buy them,right???