[Charles22]

RERomine: Very good point about being able to add or delete formations from the core. At first I thought, why would you want to add them in the first place (it's not like there aren't reasons, but I'm trying to push the point that they're not worth it)? But then you mentioned deletions, and frankly I thought once you added into core, that formation couldn't been deleted, but, then again, I'm so into keeping a highly effective core at all times, that the thought of adding something that strikes me as being in the wrong place (trucks in core instead of in support), only to delete it later would still be some measure of folly. I wonder if you can in fact delete additions, as you say, and I would think with the way you have spoke so far it would be so, since you're sort of pro-trucks in core, and then on the other hand not liking trucks. I can only surmise that you are deleting trucks in defensive missions and either aren't using trucks in support at all, or only on specific types of missions.

I'm now thinking to myself, that the knowledge of the mission makes more sense if you can adjust the core at that point, but it does seem to me that core adjustment comes inbetween missions, but I may be wrong as you may already know the next mission. I will caution, however, and it seems you have some experience with this, that features aren't always what they seem. I recall how adding formations to the original core, later on, would often result in some sort of bug. Now that has been corrected as far as I can tell, but I'm not so sure about the deletions. Needless to say, I would think that deleting C Co. from a large core force would be just asking for trouble bug-wise, but that only anything you added after that first battle could be dleted without incident, such as your last formation being trucks.

The point about armored ammo carriers, I didn't know they existed, but it seems to me it's a minor point as I'm quite sure most nations don't have them. On the more general subject of trucks, I do recall the USA truck with the .50cal but since it was the lone exception I knew of about trucks with a weapon, I didn't bother, though I would think a combatant in the form of an HT in core, would be able to switch to that truck if so desired, instead of merely carrying weaponless trucks to upgrade to the .50cal one later. The more logical path would be to have the useless core truck for cheapness, then when the time was good switch to HT's, and then later to the .50cal. I should think the HT's would still be better though, but something in the back of my mind is telling me the USA doesn't have HT's with the same capabilities of the German ones.

Your point of the suppressed ammo truck is a valid one, but still not worth the core inclusion, but answer me this. While in theory you have the retreated/routed ammo truck difficult to handle, have you ever actually been in that situation? Think hard. I'm not saying it couldn't happen, I just want to know what happened when it did. For one, if the game is as I have seen it on some SP renditions, the ammo truck is very combustible and is unlikely to survive anything approachiing a concentrated bombardment, such that worrying about it's ability to rally is minor. We haven't made the point of having ammo's in a core infantry platoon, for example, but it could be done by switching trucks in such a formation. No, no, don't tell me you would do that! Anyway, should you do that, just on the suppression aspect again, do be aware that a seperate formation of ammo's, as they usually come, generate a whole another commander, therefore a much higher chance of rallying than some slight chance that traveling in core will bring them. You could have ammo's in core, something that makes me shudder, but still have them as it seems they're basically intended (and better off) as a seperate section. The only occasion where I would say that having them not seperate is better, say in a company, is that if they are within range of the company commander, that commander could help them. Having something as important as a company commander close enough to a unit that is drawing bombardment so heavy that the company CO has to rally him, certainly is asking for it, but nonetheless could be helpful, though the rally percentage difference between a core or support seperate section of ammo's is negligible given the ammo will often be needed practically anywhere on the map.

I'm not sure about the truck being able to rally the passenger. So here's the scenario. I have never been in a situation to see that. Sure, I would rally a truck if it came down to it, but with the so few times I have any trucks get into trouble, I experience one of two things. Either they are destroyed or they weren't laden in the first place to matter. If the passenger somehow gets off before it is destroyed, even if the truck isn't destroyed, then the ex-passenger is no longer capable of being rallied by the truck, if indeed it ever was. I'm not too sure you're just making something of a prediction to what happens to the passenger, rather than knowing for sure. So how do you know it's true? You can't get hold of the passenger and check it's suppression while loaded. Do you bother to not only check who the paseneger is, but then go to the roster and can check the suppression from there (assuming that would work)? Just sounds realy wild that the passenger would be rallied too since they're completely different units. Only if the truck were a commander in the same outfit as the pasenger would this be possible in the conventional sense I understand. Ugh, a truck commanding infantry - shudder.

Then there is the case I stated before, about having low morale on a truck is often a better thing. If I was lame enough to have a truck, especially against direct fire, get attacked, I sure wouldn't want the passengers to stay aboard. What's the benefit? They're in a lot more danger on the truck from the truck overturning or exploding than they often would be getting off of it (depending on current truck speed of course) also because the truck is more susceptible to be hit than the passengers are by collatural damage. Being usually a size 3 or higher, is a lot worse than being size 0-2 for infantry (usually a 1). I can't tell you how many times my size three tanks are hit by collatural damage, but it is very high. Infantry on the ground don't get hit half as much.

About the SS inf to truck comparison. You build the argument on speed, and that's what's getting you into trouble probably (not that you claim any trouble. I just see the trouble though). What's so important about speed? Granted, I have seen the scenarios generated by SPWAW for example, and they're so ridiculously few in turns that I could see the need for helter-skelter tactics as a necessity, but we are talking winSPWW2 campaigning here, something quite berift of needing much speed (too bad we still don't get points for advancing units off-board, aye?). It's not like I don't have transport of some kind. Roughly, half my infantry are laden on trucks, HT's, or AFV's for a very short time, while the other half are on foot. Not that I couldn't put more of them on transport, even with the force I always have, I just don't do it, as I find there's such a thing as too much infantry concentration, such that it makes any bombardment in the area very destructive so that's one way of seperating them. Seeing how my units are limited in playing on the largest height map, I place some of it in more of an observation mode, to which infantry do quite nicely.

The whole point, of especially a truck, is not to be under fire in the first place. If delivering with speed is so important while under fire, then HT's are often the best answer. With trucks, you have to unload earlier, therefore less speed. You might get to wherever faster, that is, if you have a nice clean paved road, and then be under fire, but we know how infrequent those sort of roads are. Generally the HT is better for a transport role, not only becuase it was weapons, but because it isn't soft, but you know that already as indeed you're just making something of an argument for somebody else in this case. A guess a smoke fanaticism would help the truckers of the SP world, aye?

About the trucks and HT's in core you mentioned, I think you're still not getting it. There's quite a lot of difference between the two, though I do use quite a lot of AFV as transport for a time. The HT isn't soft, so unless arti. hits the top they're "fairly" safe from collatural damage. Some HT's are harder to hit because of a smaller size and some aren't open-topped (though very few), though are all thin-skinned. Perhaps more importantly, they are armed. Often I find, though I carry only a platoon of them with a seperate infantry platoon, that they fight only infantry, if you manage it quite right (depending on mission and enemy) so it's giving that infantry quite a lot of power. I defintely expect them to fight each battle, but I have to find the time and place for it. I certainly don't park them somewhere and hope they don't get bombarded, as they're not all that vulnerable. Sure, you lose one now and then, and that's usually just because you got too bold and not because arti knocked them all out at once, etc. Now if I have as many HT's as you do, that would probably lead to me being more bold with them, but then I'm not so keyed up on speed transport anyway. You spoke of their uselessness on defense, but actually that's often where I find them the most useful. There's usually all sorts of nicks and crannies where they can be useful, even if they're not the best unit. There is also all sorts of places, generally, where you can place them usefully even if just to avoid bombardment and the back row isn't what I'm talking about. Inevitably, if you work at it, you can find useful fighting roles for them, but maybe that's where we're different, as I have them a seperate platoon, and after they unload their initial load, they may not be loading the rest of the battle, nor even necessarily aiding the infantry they loaded. They're a fighting force as far as I'm concerned. Needless to say, unless they get any up-armoring later on, their role in fighting becomes more reduced. They're basically limited engagement speed and firepower as far as I'm concerned.

I think you understand the concept of every combatant unit in core, is better than a combatant in support, and that trucks aren't combatants (but HT's can be) but for some reason you're banking an awful lot on where you shouldn't be banking, those minimally experienced support units. It seems that what I said about the possibility of your core being too weak is true, because you have explained at least how you have so may HT's but aren't even fighting with them at all (defensive missions). If I used HT's to such a limited degree I wouldn't even have the mere four I have in core. Off to support they would go. Bottom line is, if you fight with almost all the units of your core and leave non-combatants to support, your support won't seem so important, as you have plenty of firepower already and it would be far more experienced. Facing those T34's, Char B's? Then maybe get some ZPZI's in core or 88's (or upgrade), and then delete them later from the core when no longer necessary, if you can delete them from core as you say. Personally I would go with nothing but core, which unfortuantely would necessiate that I would need ammo trucks in core, but there's too many units totally unavailable to cores, and it does allow something of units that are sort of fodder.

Pardon me for a moment.....you said you have a minimum of 28 units (HT's) that you just park on defensive missions. I'm really amazed. I don't know the compostiton of your force, but why not get rid of at least half of those and for offensive missions load SS inf on AFV's? So here's your situation as I see it. You have 28 units that are used only half the time, which would be about a third of my force (how many units do you have and what size map?), and worse yet in core (since you're not using them for fighting very much). Don't you have to buy an awful lot of combatant units, especially for defensive missions? You almost seem to have a fear of having combatants in core, as though they are useless and inflexible as your HT's are useless in defensive missions. Surely you must be relying very heavily on mines or air units in support, right (not that I do)? There is nothing that is combatant, that is available to the core, that isn't better off there than in support. It's just a basic concept. It seems to me you're way over-emphasizing the advantages of radical mobility for the offensive, and things that aren't available to cores on the defensive, therefore a great protecting of support. Just my hunch. I certainly like to have some air support and mines can make things easy, too easy.

Perhaps you're somewhat where I was in my past, where I felt I had to use every support point for some reason. I think it was because I thought the AI would use the full support even if I did not. That's not the case. What that then means is that you are best off accounting for every little point, and putting points into units that cannot gain experience is more and more folly, though, like I said, mines are often just the opposite. Just on a sidenote, I enjoy when my first campaign mission is being assaulted, because then I can put pillboxes in core if I so desire. I don't think you can place pillboxes in core unless that first mission is like that, and cannot be added later to the core.

Sorry about being so wordy, but you struck so many cords.