How do I use ammo trucks?

[Charles22]

RERomine: I knew there were a few holes to my argument, the "get a unit cheap to upgrade to what you really want later (HT's)" was certainly one of them.

You've got a Defend battle and 500 support points, what do you do? Spend 50 on ammo trucks?

Precisely, or, perhaps better yet, choose so as to make the last 25pts. to an ammo truck, so that you don't get stuck with two if you only want one. If I think I need any resupply, ammo trucks are the first thing I pick, so as not to forget them. Should I forget them it's back to a reload to start all over again.

As far as ammo trucks go, whether core or not, consider the following, which is simplfying the problem here. Let's say an SS infantry platoon and ammo truck cost the same (SS infantry is actuaslly cheaper at the start):

9/39 - SS core infantry 75exp (let's ignore morale for the time being)
ammo truck support - 64exp support

10/39 - SS core infantry 80exp
ammo truck support - 64exp

5/40 - SS inf 83exp
ammo truck supp - 64exp

The other way around, your ammo truck, which cannot fight gains from 64 to maybe 75exp, but not that it matters, since it cannot but be used as a target, "while" your support SS inf stays with the mere 75exp throughout. As the war grows longer, should neither unit suffer damage in the core spot, the difference becomes more profound, as having an SS unit with over 100exp is constantly being replaced (or some other equal costing unit) SS units which are 'decreasing' in value, such that your '45 SS inf might be 65exp, while your core one would had been in the 100's. I don't think having a 100exp ammo truck helps, really. I don't think they unload any quicker, because I don't think the code was written to cover such obscure things as how quickly they unload tied to exp/morale. I know for a fact it doesn't make a difference with ordinary trucks, though, as I said, the trucks ability to cower, if there is one, would make really poor morale or experience possibly preferable to what is generally accepted as being good. Do my SS inf to truck comparison over a larger scale, say comparing an entire platoon or two of the very same units and the fighting quality of your overall force be3comes profoundly weaker. Of course, if one is in the habit of losing half our core, or half of the entire army, I can certainly understand how seeing the support forces as inferior would have pretty much a hollow ring (not that such a thing would describe anyone).

I just don't see any way around it, as trucks (with the exception of buying a cheap unit to upgrade later) and ammo trucka are a waste in core. You spoke of wasting 10% of support on ammo trucks, but it's not like your core gets off scott free having them there. Oh sure, it's a lesser percent of a larger total in core, but the points put to your overall army (core and support) is precisely the same, and some of them benefit from being in the core and some of them do not, so why not put the do-nots in support? Perhaps if your core is stronger, like with no trucks (though I carry 4 HT's, which are combatants) then the support you pick won't be so crucial? In a meeting engagement, for example, I almost feel guilty picking over 300pts. though 500 is available. Why is that? Partially because I'm not wasting points on non-combatants and have a more satisfying force. Frankly if it weren't for possibly wanting air support in that situation, which I cannot get in core, I would only be picking support just to have some units, that don't cause me total bleeding. IOW, it feels good to have some units whose loss only means a popint loss, rather than also exp/morale losses that fixing or replacing a core unti can involve.

As assualting or being assulted, goes, however, that's often different as you have more reason to need support, but IMO the support totals are then so overwhelming that it's just making it far too easy for myself to select all that support. So as I do things, you can see that having the habit of selecting trucks, ammo trucks, 1 inf platoon, perhaps some air support, and maybe a tank section have little to do with worrying about those trucks being spent there when the totals are so immense to start with. Nonetheless, my main point is not to say that somehow our support is all the more greater for one method or the other, largely because as I see it, the support force is pretty much just a pool I use to soak up some fire and also to provide what is either non-essential, unavailable, or makes no sense in core.

I can see wanting to have perhaps an 8 unit platoon, four of which are trucks, just to sort of keep them together, but then that's part of the problem isn't it (just ignoring trucks as a waste in core for the moment)? Get some or all the trucks destroyed after a bombardment that is merely trying to supress that infantry, and your poor infantry start suffering additional damage due to the destroyed trucks suppressing them (and since we get them in the same platoon to keep them together, why would you send them abroad only to become seperated?). Ordinary foot infantry doesn't have that problem, as they are plagued less by no trucks about them being destroyed from the same platoon (though the range of the destruction from the unit in question counts I'm sure).

So you might say, suppose I just absolutely had to have mobility for that foot platoon in the form of trucks, what would work better? Simple, a different platoon of "support" trucks. Not only is there an "additional" command to rally 4 of those 8 units, but the trucks don't have to stick around that infantry and can deliver them and get out of harm's way possibly easily. Tie them to that platoon and they will suffer suppression often enough for going to the rear and help with towing or loading some other things. You see? More versatility and no penalty for being support from other formations.

Oh, one last thing on keeping the core to it's heights of effectiveness, I'm sure there are those who tire of the advantages that having combatamt units very highly experienced may often make beating the AI even more of a cakewalk, and to such a viewpoint I have no answer, other than to play shorter campaigns.

[gila]

Charles seems to have issues with other gamers preferences on using trucks

[Charles22]

Originally Posted by gila

Charles seems to have issues with other gamers preferences on using trucks

If you want a less effective force, that's your poison. I offer a better way, or so I think. Ignore it or not. As I said earlier, I used to have trucks in core too, and just don't think it's a good idea.

[RERomine]

Having ammo trucks in your core is a matter of personal preference, I guess. Since core elements can be added (if you have repair points) and deleted whenever you want, it's not like you are stuck with what you pick at the beginning of a campaign. For me, I prefer a couple in the core so it's one less element to worry about taking out of support points. As with just regular trucks, ammo trucks can be upgraded to armored ammo carriers at a later point and some of those are armed. And while you are correct that experienced ammo trucks don't deliver resupply any faster, their experience might be the difference between being just pinned by nearby artillery and retreating or even worse, routed. Experience will also allow a better chance of rallying. Seeing my less experienced, yet cheaper ammo truck retreat three turns before I get it under control could mean units needing resupply have to wait six turns.

While I mentioned, I don't like trucks as transports because they are too easy to kill. Still experienced transports, be they trucks or tracks, will suffer less suppression to incoming fire, just like ammo trucks. They are also easier to rally as well. As an added bonus, units in them are also rallied. Higher experience of the transport also benefits the transported. Also, if the truck is less experienced, like the ammo truck example, it could go running away. You've got your 65exp truck running away with your 100exp SS infantry unit! A 100exp truck has a better chance of getting your 100exp SS infantry unit where it needs to go faster. How much faster? I don't know because I would never keep a truck in my core without upgrade long enough for it to get to 100exp. I'm just trying to point out they are not a complete waste of space.

A good argument could be made for not having transports in the core at all, whether they are trucks or half-tracks. They are nearly useless on a defend mission. I've had the AI assault with 100+ tubes of artillery. My infantry hunkers down in bunkers for protection, but unfortunately there aren't underground parking garages for the transports. I usually leave them parked on the back edge and hope the don't attract attention. If they aren't part of your core, however, you could end up spending a lot of support points on transports for other battles. My core has two SS infantry companies with 14 half-tracks each. That's over 500 support points if they weren't part of my core. For that reason, they are in my core and they do set out of harms way during defend missions.

I do understand the point you are making. You want your experienced core to be composed of units with some offensive or defensive capability. I'm just trying to point out that there are some advantages to having experienced non-combatants. If there were more limitations on changes that could be made in your core, I think it would matter more. It matters more early on before you stock pile some repair points so you can add to your core. Beyond that, I think it's just personal taste.

[Imp]

It all depends on the player & has pros & cons

Cons
Yes having non combatant stuff in your core is not particulary sensible from improvement point of view.
You have to spend repair points to fix them.
Likes of trucks are a liability if defending as allows attacker a bigger force as you would not buy with support points as you are not going anywhere.
In fact as RERomine said most taxis can be a liability on defence even indeed armour, you could not buy scout vehicles as prone to dying if thats your thing.

Pros
Dont have to remember to buy them each time. I need x trucks x utility blah blah.
Means you have a genuine core unit capable of operating without support as I nearly always do in meeting engagments.
If plan on becoming mechanised sometime can now upgrade & already in a niceorder for deployment.
As a thought Division is probably getting a bit naffed off at you for keep on hogging all the transport.
Support is now just that divisional assets assigned to you so.

Every one has there own idea of what they want yours takes advantage of the game system but why not have a proper core & theme say

(Edit) sorry Gila forgot WW2 but you get the general idea just adapt from below to what you want so any extra armour would be TDs SPGs or such not tanks if look at big picture as the rest of your unit is already engaged.

If you want to take advantage of the game system I would say the things that benefit the most from experience are FOOs engineers (fast mine clearing) scouts & armour esp in WW2. Helos to in MBT if you can keep them alive as dodge SAMs better.

Russian 80s armour formation
Everybody has a ride inc HQ & is self contained formation with integral AAA arty ammo trucks.
Ammo dumps cannot be used in meetings as no time to prepare for onboard stuff & support arty air rare.

Support points are for divisional assets so AAA arty air engineers plus option of following.
Allocating extra ground forces
When available why not use troops local to area or in this case maybe have the Poles help out.
Can possibly recieve local scout or partisan milita support.
For urban get troops assigned as now you are really the support.
If need more armour no tanks available sorry in use elsewhere but can have ATGM vehicle hunter killer unit assigned.

Now you have a theme & a proper fighting force to take through the campaign.

If its a long campaign with upgrades no piecemeal upgrading you have to replace the entire company so save those repair points or your unit will not be among the first to recieve the new kit.

[Imp]

To Charles22

Everybody to their own the flexibility of this game allowing for that is just one of its good points.

I used to buy my core like you maximising it, only have best equipment no trucks sacrificial lambs biggest squads so survive, even occasionaly reloading if I lost superman.
But times change & now its just a series of battles with the same guys.
Yes its gutting when you lose super FOO & his fast arty strikes but even if only half your core survives to improve for the next battle its easier than a regular one.
Besides you did have a second guy you were nurturing didn't you.

[PanzerBob]

Good daqy all

Trucks and Ammo Trucks in the Core, mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm,

IMHO, as mentioned I think it depends on what your are trying to portray. If you want to at least start in a historical TO&E for your force, you will find a lot of forces were likely to be lucky to have trucks. If the plan is to upgrade as you Campaign along, trucks are a good start so once you have made those upgrades you have a unit together, not some motor pool dudes. (Although for some US Units this maybe accurate) I've even a few times kitted my PzGen out with Sdkfz 10's or a mixture of HT’s and Trucks. I even tried a mixture of trucks and horses/mules and while historical it did slow down game play. Especially at the unit sizes I usually field.

I think as well that if you plan on having fully HT’d Infantry Units having the vehicles gain experience only makes good sense.

Ammo Trucks are a must if you have an onboard battery or two in a Campaign, especially SPA’s. Of course you can start with towed stuff with horse drawn everything and be real historical.

I think the bottom-line is this game is so awesome that one can do all these things and more.

Bob out

[Charles22]

Originally Posted by Imp

To Charles22

Everybody to their own the flexibility of this game allowing for that is just one of its good points.

I used to buy my core like you maximising it, only have best equipment no trucks sacrificial lambs biggest squads so survive, even occasionaly reloading if I lost superman.
But times change & now its just a series of battles with the same guys.
Yes its gutting when you lose super FOO & his fast arty strikes but even if only half your core survives to improve for the next battle its easier than a regular one.
Besides you did have a second guy you were nurturing didn't you.

You're right about that, only if I lose a superman he's lost; no reload there. Besides, how much does it matter if half or more of your core is supermen anyway?

[Imp]

Hi Charles

Okay lets clarify if you want the best super core then dont buy trucks ammo resupply in your core. I dont vs a human player.

But against the AI come on give it a break you do not need more advantages what you need is a fun challenging game.
Read my post them Germans were good I did not bother to mention I have 2 ammo trucks & 2 ammo mules in cmy core.
These have been hard battles & I am pretty good.
Be honest when is the last time in a Campaign the AI gave you a real challenge.
Do you accept the battle as it comes or change the map vision if you think it will be hard. I dont with the exeption being urban in the snow as time consuming.
Vs the AI I generaly play to fast risking losing a unit I would not in PBEM esp when mopping up

I would say we both want diffrent things from our campaign.
You I feel want an easy quick play victory as I used to.
I want a challenge & my hat is off to the team in that I have got one.
Sorry to those I am PBEM at moment but seeing if I can make the crossing fairly intact has gripped me, I am favouring a game vs the AI over a human good grief.
But things are tense & I have an uphill struggle once on the far bank. What happens if I lose my 6 engineers how do I fight the tanks then?

[Charles22]

Imp: No Imp, you read me wrong to a degree. I'm not for easy victories, in fact my desire to play weaker nations speaks to that, and often in wargaming I desire the defeated nation more, but, then again, Germany was a defeated nation.

Now think of all the things that would make Germany or most any nation uber-powerful. Buy plenty of 88's for example. I buy only two. If things get really bad I might add two more, but as Germany can get pretty good or outstanding tanks sooner or later, there's only a temporary need there.

Now that I have dwelt on a truly more effective core in writing it here, it does occur more clearly to me the greater advantage I have against the AI, but what else are you to do? It's obvious what the point of campaigning is. My idea is that my army is the elite force of that nation's army, or at least it will be if I do well. I personally think my force is VERY susceptible to air attack, but since that won't come till late '41 at the earliest, I can always add in more AA later. Another thing is, that part of the idea of optimizing your effectiveness, becomes that much more necessary should you be campaigning as say a weak Japan. Optimizing with Japan, or Italy becomes a lot more crucial and you don't succeed with them buy buying trucks in core; no way. Germany and the USSR can often skirt despite having such a thing.

The one thing about Germany that attracts me more to playing them more than the others, is that not only were they defeated, but they were also a nation who had lots of victories. IOW, they're not a nation that sees pretty much only one type of battle, like the USA for example.

As far as the AI giving me a challenge, realize first of all that almost every battle, even against the Poles as Germany gives me many challenges. I may have a very effective force, but I am crippled by playing fire brigade style. What is fire brigade style? Firstly, it's playing on 200X140 map with somewhere between 90-110 core units. You see the problem? The map is so tall and narrow, that every battle that has the AI attacking is much more dramatic, as I don't have enough units to cover all the holes. This leads often to my armor having to rush from one scene of non-defense, or helping a picket line somewhere. It's really a lot of fun. Overall, you might look at the end result in points and conclude I didn't have a good time, as I am almost always getting decisive victories (excepting possibly France '40 and USSR '41), but it's those little periods of weakness that even make the overall decisive victory so enjoyable. Can the flank, be reinforced by units in the middle in time, for instance? Will the middle regret sending them and be subject to a heavy attack afterall? Will the other flank help the then weak middle and get there on time? A lot of that goes on. Even just the battles before help arrives is quite invigorating, as a platoon of infantry, perhaps, tries to find the most effective way to either slow the attack, run from it, or dish out maximum damage. I have so many units that end up being on the lopsided side of things, for a time, that there's no way you can truly say that I'm not at a disadvantage and that it's a total bore. Besides, for me, losing even one core unit is something of a tragedy, though I know those losses will often come.

I will tell you one thing about this game though, that would make it more interesting. I used to play Panzer Strike way back in the old days, which was very similar to SP. It had a campaign feature where if you replaced/upgraded more than a certain percentage of your core at one time, you would not be able to fight the next battle and have to wait till the battle after that, or longer. To put that in winSPWW2 terms, that means that when that occurs your 60 battle war just went to 59 battles at most, such that it hurt your point total to not fight as many battles. Part of me plays to better what I achieved in Panzer Strike and SP, where despite the scoring system being somewhat different, and there being no delays for changing your whole core if you want to, I at least have some sense of whether my warring has improved over the years.

BTW, I will probably buy 30 mines maximum, probably 15-20 in most cases, just because I know how overwhleming they can be. The AI can mine me to hell and back, and that's one advantage he will have over me and I'm not that terribly good at sniffing them out. I almost always will buy a pillbox or two, just because they throw a different element into the game, though I find their effectiveness debateable. It's just fun to have certain units which cannot be moved and have to be defended to the last man.

The AI, when it's available to them, often WAY overspends me in both artillery and air support. I buy 'maybe' two air sections when I can, usually one. The entireity of my arti comes from one battery of offboard core 100cm's in for early Germany anyway (4 guns), 2 onboard 75IG's, and 2 150IG's. I might pick another arti battery of some light variety in support for assaults, but usually not.

Other than the experience I hope to gain later, there's nothing terribly overpowering about my force. I tone down my air, I tone down my arti and look for my most major punch being in each core unit being as effective as it can be through experience gain.

I will give you some example form my last battle of the kind of excitement can be found in parts of my battles. I had almost exactly what I described to you earlier concerning an infantry platoon picket in a meeting engagement with the top 40 hexes being completely berift of units, save for this platoon and one lousy PZ38t. The PZ38t was there as sort of a flank infantry support, and to do exactly what I did with it. What is that? He found a cranny where the 2-3 platoons of tanks were coming (a small cranny with at most 15 hexes before trees would interupt it) and started destroying them one-by-one. Now it wasn't exactly easy, and he got damaged mid-way through the battle himself, but I stuck it out with him and the sector ended up not needing help and got none. Should the tank had been destroyed, or there were another platoon of enemy tanks, I probably would had sent help. Now you may ask, why didn't you send help earlier, despite the unlikely huge success? I don't recall why exactly. Maybe the closest armor was just too far away. Maybe I was convinced the attack once past that point would home in on where the rest of my frontal forces were and come to me, so to speak. Or maybe I just had a hunch. You see what I mean? Nothing too dull about that, I was against tanks that could had just as easily destroyed that tank and swept the area. These weren't tanks with just MG's and that close range could had easily destroyed them. Oh, I'm wrong I did have some help, as I sent an airstrike up there and immobilized or destroyed one tank by that.

To me, as I so often found when playing SPWAW, the game got boring partly because I often was confined to a map height of 20,40,or 80 hexes (at the extreme most 120 hexes) against my will. There's just not too much fun when the flanks can be reached by placing AFV's, even in the early years, in the center of the map and blast away without moving. Excitement is when you have to move AFv's not just one or two turns to reach that area, but sometimes as many as eight turns. You're gritting your teeth, will they get there in time? Jolly good fun. It really gives you the feeling that you have individual armies out there, let's say about 7 or 8, and each one has it's own particular problems, whether extremely successful or not, instead of having such a blob of concentration that it feels as if the whole thing is just one or two armies.

OTOH, I don't attack in a very concentrated manner against the AI. Oh my two tank companies will have an infantry platoon with them perhaps, but that's as much concentration as I get. I'm pretty much attacking the entire AI line at one time, but with VERY varying amounts. Sure, my 2 main armored thrusts will often have great success, but when that same infantry platoon and one PZ38t hit a certain area you know they will be at their wit's end just like I described in that defensive portion of that meeting engagement I mentioned. With a 200 height map, there's all kinds of spots where your two armored thrusts aren't going to be able to reach very soon.

One last bit of my not excessively pressing an advanatge a lot of people would press...not only am I picking only two core 88's but I don't even plan on using them until France, maybe not until the USSR. They're such an expensive unit for that early, that not only do I hate to lose them, but I don't want their experience severely crippled should they engage units that don't need to be interfered with by them, and lose men. They start the battle on something of a rearward hill with transport nearby. If something breaks through, as is almost always the case, the target will have to be really worth it, and even then I will probably wheel them off after only 1-2 turns of firing, because I'm pretty sure the AI will bring the arti a calling.

When France comes, when I'm pretty sure they will do a good amount of firing, I will change where I place them, but not as you might expect, such as some front hill overlooking a big area, but the opposite, should I be on a defensive mission. I have had them on the ground, guarding a cranny, maybe 30 hexes deep if possible. The idea is for them to engage strong AFV's when not more than a couple of the AFV's will be able return fire. They're that way never overwhelmed, and while they're not the most active of my guns, in that role they are devastating more than usual, because almost no units can engage them in equal terms. It's taking your most expensive unit, which will definitely draw all kinds of fire and artillery and making it available to every unit and their dog, that gets your best units in trouble. If it were a Tiger in '40 france, I would blaze away on a hill once I was convinced the enemy had no air (and maybe even then) but as the 88 is a lot more vulnerable if have to play these games with it.

So you see, I give the AI quite a few chances, but I'm not dumb about it either. I still want to come away with a victory of some sort, and I should if I have a nation which is often favorable. Playing with Italy or Japan, I should feel lucky to get even a marginal victory. Different nations; different measures of success. If you can play with as much fun as I can with the USSR or Germany, due to a small ratio of units to map size, then even these traditional more boring nations can have a good deal of fun. Yes, there is some boredom, but that's if I forget all the nice little undermanned battles I won to get to that point, and all the delaying actions that made a difference.