hm_stanley Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 I've found an interesting combination of unit setups that I find interesting. However, first things first, One thing that is not clear are what are units relative strengths, that is how are they made up weapons wise. For example, there is no need to add a bazooka to an airborne squad, since they have one contained in one squad. I found the useful element of adding a BAR to those platoons, since it provides them some very interesting firepower. On the otherhand, armored pzgrdn (mech infantry, not regular infantry) platoon contain no anti tank capability, which can be quite confusing to a new person aartting up ther forces. The other aspect of force setup is the quality of that unit in terms of length of service and morale. I can get by much better (in terms of quality of fight, not plugging holes on the defensive) with one extreme airborne company then setting up two regular airborne companies, it seems quality trumps quantity everytime, with the exception of armor, which really doesnt seem affected by unit quality considerations. I've had regular armor units act like gods on the battlefield vs elite armor elements getting hit once by a spalling round and buggin out, this isn't so for the infantry elements. Now why? I have idea, but I've won games with little more than a company of crack men duking it out with 2x as many enemy and coming out on top more often than not. I'm curious to what other people have found? To sum: 1. Armor seems least affected morale and longevity multipliers 2. Infantry get a huge bonus with incrementing their morale multiplier 3. Infantry get a smaller multiplier when improving their longevity (veteran vs crack for example) 4. BFC should try to provide more granularity to platoon Malthus, that is, how many men and what they are fielding. Thanks, 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.